This execution petition sought implementation of a prior order directing engagement of the petitioner on a part-time basis. The respondent agreed to compliance within two weeks, leading the court to dispose of the current petition accordingly.
Directive to respondents to implement a prior judgment within two weeks; liberty to revive if not complied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA EXUCTION PETITION (TRIBUNAL) NO. 53 of 2022
Between:
DALIP CHAND, S/O SH. AMIN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE MALIAN, PO TARAKWARI, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
….PETITIONER
(BY MR. TARUN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P., SHIMLA-171002.
2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT, B-33, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2
….RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Whether approved for reporting?.
This execution petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
O R D E R
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 17.10.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6646 of 2011, titled Dalip Chand v. State of HP and Ors , whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for engagement on part time basis alongwith consequential benefits as admissible under law within six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume and believe 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 two weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do
3
the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment.
13th June, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
Dalip Chand
State of Himachal Pradesh
The Director, Social Justice & Empowerment
The Child Development Project Officer, Bhoranj
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
