Allowed

Daulat Ram v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Himachal Pradesh HC22 May 2017CWP/1061/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these four connected writ petitions, the Court held that the Respondents had failed to release full retirement benefits, including interest. The Court directed the Respondents to comply with a prior Division Bench judgment within eight weeks, disposing of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondents to comply with the judgment in Nek Ram case regarding release of retirement benefits within eight weeks.

Daulat Ram Vs Himachal Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1061 of 2017 a/w CWP Nos. 1062, 1063 and 1064 of 2017. Date of decision: 22.5.2017

¶2

1.CWP No. 1061 of 2017
Daulat Ram Versus	….Petitioner
HRTC and another	….Respondents
2.CWP No. 1062 of 2017
Nand Lal Suman Versus	….Petitioner
HRTC and another	….Respondents
3.CWP No. 1063 of 2017
Mangat Ram Versus	….Petitioner
HRTC and another	….Respondents
4.CWP No. 1064 of 2017
Vinod Kumar Versus	….Petitioner
HRTC and another	….Respondents

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. B. N. Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the cases of the petitioner(s) are covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled as Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others . His statement is taken on record.

¶10

Issue notice. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar that the respondents have already released all the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner(s) except interest.

¶12

In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to comply with the aforesaid judgment, in letter and spirit, within a period of eight weeks from today. The judgment, supra, shall form part of this judgment also.

¶13

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶14

Copy dasti.

¶15

( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

¶16

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), May 22, 2017. Judge (GR)

Daulat Ram v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulat Ram v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jai Prakash Hydro Power Ventures Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jai Prakash Hydro Power Ventures Limited

Union of India Vs Uttam Ram

Ms Laj Creations Vs the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal and Others

Dharam Chand Vs Sanjay Gupta

Mohinder Lal Vs Kumud Singh