Mani Ram vs "In View Of The Above
2022 Latest Caselaw 2193 HP

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
            ON THE 23rd    DAY OF APRIL, 2022
                          BEFORE




                                                      .
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





     CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT (TRIBUNAL)
                      1073 OF 2020





 Between:

     MANI RAM S/O SHRI MANGLU RAM,




     R/O VILLAGE BREHTER, P.O. M.D.
     GALU,   TEHSIL     SUNDERNAGAR,
     DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

                          ...PETITIONER

  (NONE)



    AND




     1. MANISHA NANDA, ADDITIONAL
     CHIEF    SECRETARY,   HPPWD,





     SHIMLA, H.P.
     2. R.D. CHAUHAN, EXECUTIVE
     ENGINEER,             HPPWD,





     SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI,
     H.P.

                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA AND MR. RAJINDER DOGRA,
SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR.




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2022 20:19:08 :::CIS
                                       2


VINOD THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
MR. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER)


                This petition coming on for hearing this day,                      this




                                                                      .

    Court passed the following:

                ORDER

The records reveal that the only direction passed by

learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (M) No. 503

of 2018, in case titled as, "Mani Ram versus State of H.P. and

others", dated 12.7.2018 is contained in para­6 of the judgment,

which reads as under:

"In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 and the connected matters, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority that subject to the above

verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said order shall also be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as per law, within three

months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority by the applicant."

2. The respondents have filed reply, wherein it has been

specifically averred that the case of the petitioner was considered

and rejected through a detailed and reasoned speaking order dated

8.3.2019, Annexure R­1. Since the only direction issued was to

consider the case of the petitioner, the same has been duly

considered. Therefore, the present petition is clearly misconceived

and dismissed as such. Notices are discharged.

3. However, it is always open to the petitioner to assail

.

the consideration order, in accordance with law. Since the

petitioner has failed to put in appearance before this Court either in

person or through his counsel, therefore, let a copy of this order be

sent to him by the Registry, free of costs, on the address given in

the memo of parties. The pending application(s), if any, are also

disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

April 23, 2022 Kalpana