Manoj Kumar vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4977 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                 ON THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
                                  BEFORE




                                                            .
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR





                EXECUTION PETITION No. 350 of 2021
    Between:­





    MANOJ KUMAR, (CONDUCTOR),
    SON OF SH. DUNI CHAND,
    VILLAGE KASARU, P.O. BAADAGHAT,
    TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR,





    H.P.

                   r                             ....PETITIONER

         (BY SH. H.R. BHARDWAJ ADVOCATE)

                            AND

    1.   HRTC, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
         SHIMLA.



    2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
         HRTC, HAMIRPUR UNIT, H.P.




    3.   THE REGIONAL MANAGER,





         HRTC, NALAGARH UNIT,
         DISTRICT SOLAN H.P.





                                            ....RESPONDENTS

         (BY MR. V. B. VERMA, ADVOCATE)

         This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

    passed the following:

                     ORDER

This Court had on 7.7.2021, upon, CWP No. 3511 of

.

2021, made the hereinafter extracted order:­

"Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue in question is

squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2110 of 2019, titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.

His statement is taken on record.

2. In view of above, the petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks from

today.

A perusal thereof reveals that the respondents were

directed to consider the writ claim in the face of, the, verdict

made by this Court, upon, CWP No. 2110 of 2019.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed

on record an office order, wherethrough the writ claim has been

declined to the petitioner. Since as aforestated, the verdict

made by this Court, only contains a direction to the

respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in the

light of the decision recorded in CWP No. 2110 of 2019, and,

obviously when there is no peremptory mandate for granting

.

relief to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents if have found

the writ claim to be not covered by the decision supra, hence

the apposite compliance is made by the respondents to the

order supra, as, made by this Court.

3. In sequel, the execution petition is closed, its being

fully satisfied.

However, remedies in accordance with law, for

challenging the declinings of the claim of the petitioner, be

recoursed by the petitioner. All pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

8th October, 2021

(kck)