Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chand Sharma And Others vs Hp Forest Department Corporation And ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 55 of 2010 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2016.
.
Ramesh Chand Sharma and others .....Appellants Versus HP Forest Department Corporation and others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the appellants: rt Mr.Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Respondents No. 4 to 16 ex
parte.
_____________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral).
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.3.2010, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 2265 of 2008, titled Ramesh Chand Sharma and others versus HPSFC and Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein came to be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:20 :::HCHP -2-
dismissed, for short "the impugned judgment", on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued .
that the writ respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed the reply to the writ petition and admitted the case of the petitioners as is evident from para 14 of the impugned judgment and in view of para 14 of the impugned of judgment, the writ petition was to be granted. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the impugned judgment herein.
rt "14.The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have submitted that the seniority list has again been looked into and discrepancies found have been corrected and instructions in this behalf have already been issued to respondent No.2 to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of timber/resin watchers (daily wages). Therefore, in view of the stand of respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply the grievance of the petitioners has been set at rest by respondents No.1 to 3 themselves when it has been stated in the reply that instructions have been issued to respondent No.2to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of timber/resin watchers (daily wages). Therefore, no separate directions are required from this Court not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of timber/resin watchers (daily wages)."
3. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the respondents have not questioned the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:20 :::HCHP -3- judgment on any count. Thus, it has attained the finality so far as it relates to them.
4. Accordingly, the respondents are directed .
to do the needful within six weeks from today, in terms of para 14 of the impugned judgment referred to supra.
5. Having said so, the LPA is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith pending applications, of if any.
rt (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice.
August 02, 2016. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (cm Thakur) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:20 :::HCHP