Himachal Pradesh High Court
Joginder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
EXUCTION PETITION (TRIBUNAL) NO. 211 OF 2021
Between:
JOGINDER SINGH,
S/O SH. MANDU RAM,
R/O VILL. MANAH,
UPPER, P.O. KAROHTA,
TEHSIL BHORANJ,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
H.P.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAKESH KUMAR
SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(FORESTS) GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
SHIMLA-2.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
(FINANCE), GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
SHIMLA-2.
3. PR. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:04:59 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR
.
& MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL
WITH MR. KAMAL SHARMA &
MR. NARENDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)
Whether approved for reporting?.
This execution petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16(1) of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court Original Side Rules, 1997, prayer has been made
on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment
dated 10.5.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA
No. 2564 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by
the judgment dated 10.1.2018, rendered by the Tribunal in OA No. 1004 of 2015,
Krishan Chand v. the State of HP and Ors, directed the respondents to consider
the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar
benefit to him, if he is found to be similarly situate within a period of three
months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action,
whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to
aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in
the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General,
.
representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume
and believe that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated must have
been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied
with within a period of three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned
Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition
alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do
the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of
three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition
revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the
implementation of the order/judgment.
16th September, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
