Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattani Devi vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 7 July, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.253 of 2020
Date of Decision: 7.7.2020
_______________________________________________________
.
Rattani Devi ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. ....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy
r Advocate General.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16-A of the HP High Court (Original Side) Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 12.7.2019, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 4900 of 2015 (CWP No. 8766 of 2013) titled Rattani Devi v. State of HP and Ors, whereby Tribunal below while allowing the TA having been filed by the applicant, directed the respondents to grant annual increments to the late husband of the applicant w.e.f. 1992 to 2008 and after re-fixation of his pay, release pensionary benefits to the applicant from the date of the death of her husband with interest @ 9% p.a. within a period of three months. Since no action, whatsoever, ever came to be taken at the behest of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2020 20:22:30 :::HCHP -2-respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, .
representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.
7th July, 2020 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2020 20:22:30 :::HCHP