Dismissed

Surinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Apr 2024EX.PT/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this execution petition, the petitioner sought directions to implement a prior judgment granting ad-hoc service benefits for pension. The respondents consented to compliance within four weeks, prompting the court to dispose of the petition with a positive direction to execute the needful within that timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to implement the needful within four weeks and liberty to revive proceedings if not complied with.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.36 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.04.2024

¶3

___________________ Surinder Singh State of HP & Ors.	____________________________________ …….Petitioner Versus … Respondents
___________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice San Whether approved for re	___________________________________ deep Sharma, Judge. porting?¹
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Pawnar, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
____________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judg	___________________________________ e (oral):

¶4

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.5609 of 2019, titled as Surinder Singh Vs.

¶5

State of HP & Ors.

¶6

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the undertaking made by the respondents to extend the benefits of counting ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits, disposed of the aforesaid petition with a direction to do the

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

needful. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to to extend the benefits of counting ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶10

Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, state that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

¶11

Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by 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 do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner 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.

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶13

April 04, 2024 (sunil)

Surinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Mangesh Thakur Vs Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors.

Suman Kumari Vs Pankaj Chandel

Ajit Singh Vs Stat of Hp and Others

M/S Shree Karishna Packaging Vs Hpseb Ltd.

M/S Pure and Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hpsebl