Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhoop Singh vs State Of H.P. And Another on 2 November, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 455 of 2020
Decided on: November 02, 2020
.
____________________________________________________________
Bhoop Singh ...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. L.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate
General.
____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Rule 16 (1) of HP High Court Original Side Rules, 1997, prayer has been made for the execution of order dated 03.07.2020 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2436 of 2018 titled Bhoop Singh vs. State of Himachal and another, whereby learned Tribunal, having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 28.07.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to extend benefit of aforesaid judgment and to grant similar benefit to the petitoner, if he is found to be similar situate within a period of three months. Since no action came to be taken at the behest of the respondents towards Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2020 20:18:52 :::HCHP -2-implementation of aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed the instant petition for execution of order in question.
.
2. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General while accepting the notice on behalf of respondents states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings must have been complied with but if not, same would be complied within a period of three weeks.
3. Consequently, in view of statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with order in question within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action is taken for implementation of judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
4. Respondent to file a compliance affidavit in the Registry of this Court within a week, after taking final decision and on receipt of such affidavit, matter be listed before this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 2, 2020 (ravinder) ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2020 20:18:52 :::HCHP