Ratni Devi Aged 65 Years vs State Of Himachal
2022 Latest Caselaw 8568 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                            .
                  ON THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.





                               BEFORE

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                                 &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2595 OF 2021.





           Between:-

           RATNI DEVI AGED 65 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE
           HAV JAI KISHAN, R/O VILLAGE SANDOLI,

           POST OFFICE MAKRI MARKAND, TEHSIL
           SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

                                   .....PETITIONER.

           ( BY SH. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)


           AND

    1.     HIMACHAL    PRADESH EX-SERVICEMEN




           CORPORATION    HAMIRPUR,  DISTRICT
           HAMIRPUR,  H.P.-177001 THROUGH
           CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR.





    2.     THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (F&A), H.P. EX-
           SERVICEMEN CORPORATION, CAMP OFFICE





           BARMANA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

    3.     ACC THROUGH ITS MANAGER LOGISTIC,
           BARMANA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

                                         ......RESPONDENTS.

           (SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE, FOR
           RESPONDENTS- 1 AND 2)




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2022 20:01:22 :::CIS
                                                  2




         (SH. K.D. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
         SH. HET     RAM,   ADVOCATE,       FOR
         RESPONDENT-3)




                                                                      .
    __________________________________________________________





                 This petition coming on for orders this                             day,
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:





                            ORDER

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the

following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That impugned order as contained in Annexure P-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to re-engage

the truck of the petitioner."

2. The husband of the petitioner namely Jai Kishan was

an ex-serviceman and was admittedly re-employed in civil

employment after his superannuation from Army, which fact was not

disclosed by the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation refused to

attach the truck in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in

CWP No.2402 of 2008 titled Baldev Singh vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the action of

respondent in de-listing the truck of the petitioner is absolutely

arbitrary, as the husband of the petitioner being an ex-serviceman,

himself was entitled to ply his truck

4. However, we find no merit in such contention, because

the issue with regard to attachment of truck of ex-servicemen had

come up before this Court in CWP No.2402 of 2008 titled Baldev

Singh vs. H.P. Ex-serviceman Corporation which was decided on

.

06.01.2011 wherein, as many as 15 directions were given by this

Court to the respondents-Corporation and the State. The H.P.

Ex-Servicemen Corporation was directed to ensure that the bye

laws, rules and regulations of the Corporation be amended in line

and in accordance with the 15 directions.

5. Nevertheless, it is only direction No.12, which is

relevant and reads as under:-

"12.xx xx xx In case the ex-serviceman is re-employed, his truck will not be attached and if his truck has been already attached and the ex-serviceman re-employed in Government

service/public sector undertakings, Banks etc. then he shall have to surrender his right to get the truck attached and the vacant slot shall be given to the ex-servicemen next in the

waiting list. Xx xx xx"

6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the

aforesaid direction as the ex-serviceman i.e. the husband of the

petitioner after being discharged from the army has taken

re-employment. The truck of the petitioner was attached with the

respondent-Corporation in the year 2013 and thereafter it was

de-listed as he had already availed of the benefit of re-employment.

7. Once that be the case, obviously no fault can be found

with the orders of the respondent-Corporation in de-listing the truck

of the petitioner and the order passed by the respondents has been

passed strictly in accordance with the judgment rendered by this

.

Court in CWP No. 2402 of 2008, titled as Baldev Singh Versus

Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation & others,

decided on 06.01.2011.

8. Otherwise also, the Special Leave Petition with regard

to the issue in question stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, vide order dated 10.10.2011 and the same has attained

finality.

9. The issue in question is also squarely covered by

another judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2479 of 2015 titled

Bachittar Singh vs. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation and

another, decided on 24.06.2016.

10. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of merit

is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Virender Singh) Judge 17th October, 2022.

(krt)