Jagdish Chand vs Managing Director Hrtc And Another on 24 December, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 14]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Jagdish Chand vs Managing Director Hrtc And Another on 24 December, 2020

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                              Execution Petition No.494 of 2020
                              Date of Decision: 24.12.2020
    __________________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Jagdish Chand                                                   ......Petitioner





                                           Versus
    Managing Director HRTC and another                            ....Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    ________________________________________________________





    For the petitioner:            Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate.
    For the respondents:
                       r           Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through Video Conferencing By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16(1) of the HP High Court Original Side Rules 1997, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 14.05.2019, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1941 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and Ors, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit to him, if he is found similarly situate within a period of three months from 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2020 20:16:54 :::HCHP 2

the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached .

this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume 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 four weeks.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action towards implementation of the judgment is taken.

( Sandeep Sharma ) Judge 24th December, 2020 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2020 20:16:54 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court