Suresh Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) in light of Nek Ram's case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; if the petitioner is found similarly situate, he would be extended similar benefits; opportunity of hearing to be afforded and speaking order to be passed; all pending applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 27.11.2024 in light of the judgment dated 17.7.2014 in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors). +1 more

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 17.7.2014 in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram).

Ratio / Principle

No prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Nek Ram judgment.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) in light of Nek Ram's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; if the petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in that judgment he shall be extended similar benefits; the concerned authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order; all pending applications stand disposed of.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Justice Sandeep Sharma) disposing of CWP No.8277 of 2025 (Suresh Kumar v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.). The Court found that the issue raised in the petition already stood adjudicated by the Division Bench in Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (judgment dated 17.7.2014, CWP No. 3050 of 2014), held that no prejudice would be caused to either party by a direction based on that precedent, and disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) in light of Nek Ram's case, expeditiously and preferably within six weeks. If the petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in Nek Ram, he is to be extended similar benefits; the concerned authority must afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. All pending applications were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8277 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.5.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar

……...Petitioner

Versus …....Resp

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled as “Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors . Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court

2 -

and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) having been filed by the petitioner in light of Nek Ram ’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.

May 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge