Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Surender Kumar Vashisth vs State Of H.P. And Another on 5 January, 2021

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                            Execution Petition No. 11 of 2021
                            Date of Decision: 05.01.2021
    _____________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Surender Kumar Vashisth                                          ......Petitioner





                                           Versus
    State of H.P. and another.                                    ....Respondents





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





    ________________________________________________________

    For the petitioner:r           Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

    For the respondents:  Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Additional Advocate
                          General.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through Video Conferencing By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment/order dated 08.04.2019, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M)No. 549 of 2018, titled Surender Kumar Vashisth vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the original application, having been filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to modify memorandum dated 29.03.2013 to the extent that the benefit of enhancement of 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

retirement age is also extended to the hearing impaired also to which category the applicant belongs from 58 to 60 years as specified under Section 2(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal .

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

2. Having heard learned Sr. Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that aforesaid judgment rendered by Tribunal below was laid challenge before the Division Bench of this Court by way of CWP No. 1577 of 2018, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 5.11.2018.

Though, aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was taken in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same was also dismissed.

3. Otherwise also, perusal of the reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that judgment sought to be implemented/executed in the case at hand was not being implemented on account of pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Apart from above, another ground, which has been raised for not implementing the judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings is that Government has already withdrawn notification. Since, appeal having been filed by the State has been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court, judgment sought to be executed ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2021 20:15:29 :::HCHP 3 in the instant proceedings has attained finality and as such, respondents have no option, but to implement the same.

4. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Sr. Additional .

Advocate General prays for and is granted 6 weeks' time to do the needful in terms of judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. Having taken note of aforesaid undertaking given by learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, failing which, petitioner would beat liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

( Sandeep Sharma ) Judge 5th January, 2021 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2021 20:15:29 :::HCHP