Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gopal Krishan vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 9 October, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 386 of 2020
Date of Decision: 9.10.2020
________________________________________________________
.
Gopal Krishan ......Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ...... Respondent
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, through
video-conferencing
For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, through video-
conferencing
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondent to implement/ execute the judgment/order dated 28.3.2019, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.991 of 2019, titled as Gopal Krishan vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment (Annexure E-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 February 08, 2019 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:19:50 :::HCHP 2Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Lekh Ram etc., 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 to be similarly situate, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order/judgment. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful within a period of three months, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court r in Lekh Ram case supra, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel representing the respondents while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four 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 respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 28.3.2019, passed by learned Tribunal below in OA No. 991 of 2019, ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:19:50 :::HCHP 3 positively within a period of four 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.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 9, 2020
(shankar)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:19:50 :::HCHP