Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Joginder Singh 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. 423 of 2020
                                  Date of Decision: 14.10.2020
    __________________________________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Joginder Singh                                                   ......Petitioner.





                                           Versus
    HRTC and Ors.                                                  ....Respondents.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    For the petitioner:            Mr. J.N. Sharma, Advocate.





    For the respondents:           Ms. Shubh Mahajan, 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 08.08.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4702 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and Ors, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit to him, if he is found similarly situate within a period of three months 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 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents .

states that though she 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 six 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 six 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.

    14th October,   2020                         ( Sandeep Sharma ),
        (reena)                                        Judge.






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