Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ... on 24 August, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1956 of 2018 Decided on: 24.08.2018.
______________________________________________________________ .
Ranbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another ....Respondents
______________________________________________________________ Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge __________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:
r Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following reliefs.
"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the monthly pension w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to till date alongwith 9% interest and further directed the monthly pension should be paid to time to time, by issuing the writ of mandamus.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the full amount of Gratuity, leave encashment, GPF and commute pension, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the pending dues under law.
(iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Nek Ram versus State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 3050 of 2014, decided on 17.07.2014 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be content if a ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 23:00:33 :::HCHP direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, venting out his grievances, which he .
shall be making within a period of two weeks from today. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the reliefs as orally prayed for, is that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation which he shall be making within a period two weeks from today.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has no objection to the same.
4. No other point is urged.
5. Leaving all questions of law open, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel more so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months' from the receipt thereof, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Petitioner is also at liberty to place on record additional material including copy of judgment dated 2 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 23:00:33 :::HCHP 17.07.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled as Nek Ram versus State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-3).
.
6. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
7. r It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
8. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
August 24, 2018 ( Vivek Singh Thakur),
(hemlata/rohit) Judge.
3
::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 23:00:33 :::HCHP