Himachal Pradesh High Court
Commissioner vs Municipal Corporation And Others on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3374 OF 2022
BETWEEN r
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHIMLA THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. REETA THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NAND LAL SON OF SH. KANSHI RAM RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE HARI ASHRAM CHAKKAR, POST OFFICE
CHAKKAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
PRESENTLY SERVING AS A KEYMAN IN SHIMLA JAL
PRABANDHAN NIGAM LTD. US CLUB SHIMLA.
..RESPONDENT
2.THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVT. AND
URBAN LOCAL BODIES WITH HEADQUARTERS AT
SHIMLA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2022 20:05:09 :::CIS
2
3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P. WITH
HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA
.
... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS AND MR. VINOD THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, MR. Y.S.
THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR.
RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan passed the following:
ORDER
Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate
General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of proforma
respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned erstwhile
H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 12.7.2019, whereby the petitioner
was directed to consider the case of the respondent in the light of
judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, Mathu
Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others, decided on
31.7.2014, it has filed the instant petition for the grant of following
substantive relief:
"(i) That the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 Annexure P2
passed by Erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.
5740 of 2018 may be held illegal and may kindly be quashed and
set aside."
.
3. It would be noticed that the Tribunal in fact has not
decided the issue on merits, but has left it to the petitioner to
consider and decide the case of the respondent in the light of
Mathu Ram's judgment (supra), which is clearly evident from
para3 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"3. In view of the above, the present original application is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent
authority to extend the benefit of the judgment referred to above,
to the applicant herein, in case he is similarly situated, within two
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order
as well as copy of the aforementioned judgment before the
respondents/competent authority."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that
the only impediment because of which the case of the respondent
cannot be considered is the notification dated 11.4.2018. However,
learned Additional Advocate General, representing proforma
respondents No. 2 and 3 states that since this notification was
contrary to law, therefore, the same has already been withdrawn
much earlier to the filing of this petition.
5. As observed above, no effective rights of the
respondent have been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal vide
impugned order and the only direction therein was to consider and
.
decide the case of the respondent.
6. Therefore we find no reason to entertain this petition
and accordingly the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
May 30, 2022
Kalpana
