Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... on 7 September, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.2085 of 2018 Date of decision : 07.09.2018 Ramesh Chand .... Petitioner.
Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .... Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rajp ut, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the monthly pension w.e.f. 1.11.2017 to till date alongwith 9% interest and further directed to 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, Commute Pension, alongwith interest @ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2018 22:58:56 :::HCHP
...2...
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 17.7.2014 , Annexure P-2 to the petitioner forthwith w ith all consequential benefits."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondents to consider and decid e 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 relief 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 of two weeks from today.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2018 22:58:56 :::HCHP...3...
3. Learned counsel 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 the petitioner's r to direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation expeditiously preferably within a period of two months' from the and receipt thereof, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Petitioner is also at liberty to place on record additio nal material including copy of judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled as Nek Ram versus State of H.P. and others (Annexure P-2).
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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2018 22:58:56 :::HCHP ...4...
the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
.
7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
r to
Copy Dasti.
(Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
September 7 , 2018 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2018 22:58:56 :::HCHP