The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating merits, directing respondents to consider the case in light of a prior Division Bench judgment within eight weeks.
Direct order to respondents to consider the case in light of CWP No.2343 of 2020 within eight weeks and pass a speaking order.
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
CWP No.350 of 2024 Date of decision: 14.05.2024
Yash Paul. ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Janamjai Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court on 09.11.2023 in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 titled as ‘ Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation ’ along with connected matters. He further submits that petitioner shall be content in case the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of judgment ibid .
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of.
14th May, 2024 (Pardeep)
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is similarly situated to the parties in CWP No.2343 of 2020 and entitled to the same benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport CorporationReferred¶6
CWPOA No.2343 of 2020
Yash Paul
HRTC
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
