Himachal Pradesh High Court
Luder Mani vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 9 July, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.265 of 2020
Date of Decision: 9.7.2020
_______________________________________________________
.
Luder Mani ......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. C. N. Singh, Advocate, through Video
Conferencing.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr.
Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate General
and Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate
r General.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16 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 17.8.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4912 of 2018, 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 21.4.2010, rendered by this Court of CWP(T) No. 5253 of 2008, titled Narain Singh V. State of HP and Ors, as upheld vide common judgment dated 1.9.2015 in LPA No. 146 of 2010, State of HP and Ors v. Narain Singh (along with connected matters), directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2020 20:37:02 :::HCHP -2-judgment and grant similar benefit to him, 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. 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. 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 two 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 two 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.
9th July, 2020 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2020 20:37:02 :::HCHP