Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Nagu Ram And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 30 December, 2019

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                              SHIMLA




                                                                                     .
                                                  Execution Petition No.141 of 2019





                              Date of Decision: 30th December, 2019
    ________________________________________________________





    Nagu Ram and others                              .....Petitioners

                         Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.           ....Respondents





    ________________________________________________________
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                   : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.

    For the Respondents                   : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional
                                           Advocate General.


    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, 1997, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/execute the order/judgment dated 13.6.2019, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) No.189 of 2018, titled as Nagu Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order dated 13.6.2019, reveals that learned Tribunal having taken note of the .

submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General that Degree awarded by Institute of Civil Engineers (India) Ludhiana (Punjab) is recognized as equivalent to Degree of Engineering (Civil), disposed of the original application having been filed by the petitioners,with the directions to the respondents/ competent authority to consider the representations of the petitioners for the promotion to the post(s) of Junior Engineer(s) from the date their juniors have been promoted, within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action whatsoever, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents/ competent authority to implement/execute aforesaid judgment/ order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents/competent authority to implement/execute the order, alleged to have been violated.

3. Documents placed on record reveal that after passing of aforesaid order/judgment by the Tribunal below,matter repeatedly ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2019 20:28:13 :::HCHP 3 came to be considered by the competent authority on the representations filed by the petitioners. Documents available on .

record further reveal that matter was referred to Law Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh for opinion and Law Department in its opinion has categorically stated that since matter stands disposed of in terms of the instructions imparted by the respondents through Ld. DAG, Department is advised to ensure the compliance of the order/judgment passed by the Court below in the manner as directed by the tribunal. Law Department has categorically opined in the aforesaid opinion that there is nothing in the impugned order which warrants further agitation.

4. Careful perusal of letter dated 6.9.2019 (Annexure E­8) issued by the Secretary (I & PH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the Engineer­in­Chief ,I &PH Department, clearly reveals that Engineer­in­chief, I& PH has been specifically directed by the Office of Secretary (I & PH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to consider the case of the applicants/petitioners in the manner, as directed by the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states .

that appropriate action, in accordance with law, to implement the judgment/order alleged to have been violated, if not taken, shall be taken within a period of two days.

6. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents, to implement/execute the order/judgment dated 13.6.2019, within a period of two days, failing which, petitioners would be at 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.

Authenticated copy (Sandeep Sharma), Judge 30th December, 2019 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2019 20:28:14 :::HCHP