Krishan Chand vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17207 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8230 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Krishan Chand .......Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another. ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that

his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the

instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority

in terms of judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by Division Bench of

this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of

Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. Learned

counsel representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid

innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied

upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no

prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of the parties, if the

respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the

.

petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition

3.

is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and

decide the case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram's case (supra),

expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case,

petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the

aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless

to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant

order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the

petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if

he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge October 31, 2023 (shankar)