Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Vijay Kumar vs Hrtc And Ors on 14 October, 2020

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                          Execution Petition No. 416 of 2020
                          Date of Decision: 13.10.2020
    __________________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Sh. Vijay Kumar                                                 ......Petitioner.





                                           Versus
    HRTC and Ors.                                                 ....Respondents.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    ___________________________________________________________





    For the petitioner:            Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
    For the respondents:           Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through Video Conferencing By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16(1) of the HP High Court Original Side Rules 1997, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 13.08.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5500 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations (Annexures A-3 & A-5) and consider the case of the applicant for appointment at par with one Ambika within a period of 45 days 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. 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 20:18:20 :::HCHP 2

2. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume 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.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 towards implementation of the judgment is taken.

    13th October, 2020                                 ( Sandeep Sharma )
         (reena)                                            Judge







                                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 20:18:20 :::HCHP