And District Solan vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7890 HP

          IN     THE   HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL              PRADESH, SHIMLA

                        ON THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022




                                                                 .
                                     BEFORE





                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

                        EXECUTION PETITION No. 106 OF 2022





    Between:
    SH. DAULAT RAM S/O SH. JANU RAM,
    R/O ISHWAR NIWAS SUUNI SIDE
    NEAR DAV SCHOOL, SOLAN, TEHSIL





    AND DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
                                                                        ....PETITIONER
    (BY SH. MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)
    AND


    1. HIMACHAL       ROAD      TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION, SHIMLA-3, THROUGH ITS
       MANAGING DIRECTOR, OLD BUS STAND,
       SHIMLA-171001.


    2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR              AND CAO,
       HIMACHAL       ROAD                TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION, SHIMLA-3.




    3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HRTC, SHIMLA,
       DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.





    4. REGIONAL    MANAGER,           HRTC     SOLAN,
       DISTRICT SOLAN, HP.





                                                                   ....RESPONDENTS
    (BY MS. SHUBH MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
    ____________________________________________________________

                   This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
    following:
                          ORDER

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16(3) of

the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf

of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to

implement/execute the judgment/order dated 10.09.2018, passed by

.

erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.5398 of 2018, titled as

Daulat Ram versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and

others.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment (Annexure P-1)

alleged to have been violated, reveals that learned Tribunal below

having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel

representing the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely

covered under the judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by this Court in

CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of Himachal

Pradesh and others, disposed of the original application with a direction

to the respondents/ competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid

judgment to the petitioner, if he is found similar situate to the petitioner

in that case. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the

needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to grant the benefit to

the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Nek

Ram's case supra, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings.

3. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel representing the

respondents while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents states

that though she has every reason to believe and presume that by now

aforesaid judgment alleged to have been violated, must have been

complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of

two weeks from today.

.

4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned

counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep

the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of

with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of

judgment/ order dated 10.09.2018, passed by learned Tribunal below in

OA No.5398 of 2018, positively within a period of two weeks, if not

already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the

present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance

with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought

to be executed in the instant proceedings.

    19th September, 2022                                     (Sandeep Sharma),




         (shankar)                                             Judge