Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surender Kumar Vashisth vs State Of H.P. And Another on 3 August, 2021
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 11 of 2021
Date of Decision: 03.08.2021
_____________________________________________________
.
Surender Kumar Vashisth ......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another. ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Additional Advocate
r General.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Through Video Conferencing By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment/order dated 08.04.2019, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M)No. 549 of 2018, titled Surender Kumar Vashisth vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the original application, having been filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to modify memorandum dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) and quashed the order dated 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:48:34 :::CIS 223.7.2018. Besides above, learned Tribunal, also directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Since, respondents despite there being aforesaid .
direction issued by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, did not allow the petitioner to remain in service till 60 years, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to short reply filed on behalf of the respondents, contends that after dismissal of SLP( c) D.No(s) 18076/2019, titled as State of HP & Ors. vs. Krishan Chand, matter is under active consideration of the Government and as and when, decision would be taken, necessary orders for implementation of judgment, sought to be executed, shall be passed.
3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings came to be passed on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.1577/2018-H, titled as State of H.P. and Others vs. Krishan Chand, decided on 5.11.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, respondents-State though filed SLP, as detailed hereinabove, but same was dismissed ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:48:34 :::CIS 3 and as such, respondents-State have no option, but to implement the judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
4. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Sr. Additional .
Advocate General, fairly states that necessary steps for implementation/execution of the judgment, sought to be executed, shall be, taken, positively, within a period of four weeks.
5. In view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, there appears to be justification to keep the present petition alive and same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the execution petition 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 3rd August, 2021 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:48:34 :::CIS