Disposed¶18

Yash Pal v. Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2025CWP/14442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dearness Relief; HRTC pensioners/beneficiaries; time-bound direction to decide pending representations dated 20.09.2024; six-week timeline; reliance on Braham Dass v. HRTC (CWP No.6013 of 2023) and reference to Baldev Chand v. HRTC (CWP No.3278/2021); office memoranda 2015-2021; merits left unexamined; writ petitions disposed of, not allowed or dismissed on merits; Himachal Pradesh High Court, single judge, 01.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 20.09.2024 in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Braham Dass, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; writ petitions and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶18

Yash Pal Vs Hrtc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 20.09.2024 (claiming Dearness Relief benefits) within a fixed time schedule. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' aforesaid representations (dated 20.09.2024) in accordance with law.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

In deciding the representations, the competent authority was directed to take into consideration this Court's earlier judgment in Braham Dass Versus HRTC & Anr. (CWP No.6013 of 2023, decided 05.09.2023).

¶17

Key takeaways

The representations were to be decided within six weeks, and the decision so arrived at was to be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge), 1 January 2025 - CWP Nos.14442, 14452 and 14459 of 2024 (Yash Pal, Suraj Singh and Narender Kumar v. HRTC and others). Petitioners, represented by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, sought extension of Dearness Relief benefits in view of office memoranda dated 07.02.2015, 31.10.2016, 19.01.2017, 11.09.2017, 18.02.2019, 07.03.2020 and 31.10.2021, and with reference to the judgment in CWP No.3278/2021 (Baldev Chand versus HRTC); their representations dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) were pending with HRTC. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Braham Dass Versus HRTC & Anr. (CWP No.6013 of 2023, decided 05.09.2023), within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.14442 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 1^st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.14442 of 2024 Yash Pal …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.14452 of 2024 Suraj Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.14459 of 2024 Narender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶3

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶4

¶5

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶6

Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶8

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶9

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.14442 of 2024 read as under:-

¶10

“(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Dearness Relief to the petitioner in view of the office memorandum dated 07.02.2015, 31.10.2016, 19.01.2017, 11.09.2017, 18.02.2019, 07.03.2020 & 31.10.2021 (Annexure P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7 & P-8 and keeping in view the judgment passed in CWP No.3278/2021 titled as Baldev Chand versus HRTC @ 9% per annum to till the date of its realization in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶11

(ii) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) of the petitioner within a time bound manner.”

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶13

that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Braham Dass Versus HRTC & Anr.² . Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations dated 20.09.2024 preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective

¶14

2 CWP No.6013 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 05.09.2023

¶15

¶16

writ petitions as Annexure P-11, for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer.

¶17

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Braham Dass² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶18

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶20

January 01, 2025 Mukesh

Yash Pal v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Pal v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vivek Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Keshav Dutt Vs State of Hp and Others

Kali Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Romila Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Kuldeep Guleria Vs the State of Hp and Others