Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhim Sen vs . Onkar Chand & Others on 28 October, 2022
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
Bhim Sen vs. Onkar Chand & others
.
COPC No. 311 of 2022
28.10.2022 Present: Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondents.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court had
passed the following directions vide judgment dated
16.6.2022 in CWP No. 4374 of 2021:-
"for the foregoing reasons, this petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to
treat the petitioner eligible for grant of
pension alongwith due and admissible
arrears under Central Civil Service (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and to take all required steps in
that regard within a period of six weeks from
today. Pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any, shall also stand disposed of."
The respondents were granted six weeks
time to take all required steps for implementation of
judgment.
The respondents in the instant petition were
respondents before the writ Court in CWP No. 4374 of
2021. Thus, all the respondents were under specific
directions to take appropriate steps within six weeks
for implementation of the judgment. More than four
months have elapsed but the judgment has still
remained unimplemented.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has
.
placed on record a copy of communication, addressed
by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, concluding
para of which reads as under:-
"In view of above, it is requested that the
matter may kindly be got examined from
Finance Department and Law Department
and convey necessary approval to grant
pension to Sh. Bhim Sen in view of order/
judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated
16.06.2022 (copy enclosed) passed in CWP
No. 4374 of 2021."
It was on the basis of this communication
that a prayer was made on behalf of the respondents
on 12.10.2022, seeking time for implementation of the
judgment and this Court had directed the competent
authority to take positive decision within two weeks.
The authorities appear to be unmoved, despite
repeated directions from this Court.
Once this Court had passed directions to
implement the judgment within specific time, it is for
the respondents to expedite the matter in order to
show due compliance to the orders of the Court.
However, the facts of the case reveal that no such
attempt appears to have been made.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submits
that the respondents have filed an application for
extension of time for implementing the directions of
.
this Court but the same is not on record. In any case,
the basis for making request for extension of time is
the communication, as noticed hereinabove.
On the persuasive submission made by
learned Deputy Advocate General, one last opportunity
is afforded to the respondents to comply with the
directions, passed by this Court on or before the next
date, failing which, all the respondents shall remain
present before this Court.
List on 25.11.2022.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
28th October, 2022
(kck)
