Dismissed

Ravi Chand( Retired Chief Inspector, Hrtc) v. Hrtc and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Oct 2020EX.PT/381/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition filed for implementing a Tribunal order directing the respondents to extend court judgment benefits to the petitioner. Respondent counsel agreed to compliance, leading to dismissal without further execution measures.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to comply with the Tribunal order within six weeks; petitioner to revive petition if not complied.

Ravi Chand( Retired Chief Inspector, Hrtc)… — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Execution Petition(T) No. 381 of 2020 Decided on: October 1, 2020

¶2

____________________________________________________________ Ravi Chand ...Petitioner Versus
The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others …Respondents

¶3

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

¶4

_____________________ For the petitioner:	_______________________________________ Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, through video-conferencing.
For the respondents:	Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, through video-conferencing.
_____________________ Sandeep Sharma, J.	_______________________________________ (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant petition filed under Rule 16 (1) of HP High Court Original Side Rules, 1997, prayer has been made for the execution of order dated 4.1.2019 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 7057 of 2018, titled Ravi Chand vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby learned Tribunal, having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3050/2014, Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to extend benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner within

¶6

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

¶7

¶8

three months from the date of production of a certified copy of order, subject to his being similarly situate person. Since no action came to be taken in the matter after lapse of considerable period, petitioner has filed the instant petition for execution of order in question.

¶9

2. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe that the order in question stands implemented, but if not, same would be complied with, within a period of six weeks.

¶10

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order in question, within six weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate steps towards execution of the order in question are taken. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶12

October 1, 2020 (Vikrant)

Ravi Chand( Retired Chief Inspector, Hrtc) v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Chand( Retired Chief Inspector, Hrtc) v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdas Ram Vs State

Iqbal Singh Vs K. K. Pant and Anr.

Gulab Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rangila Ram Vs Raj Kumar Verma

Pratap Singh Vs State of Hp

Bikramdas Vs Union of India