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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Vikram Singh's case (CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, judgment dated 09.11.2023), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situated; opportunity of hearing and a speaking order mandated; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 09.11.2023 in Vikram Singh (CWPOA No.2343 of 2020), extending similar benefits to him if he is found similarly situated.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench judgment rendered in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh), and therefore no prejudice would be caused to either party in directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner in light of Vikram Singh's case, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situated to the petitioner in the Vikram Singh judgment, he would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶3
The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon; all pending applications stand disposed of.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed of. The petitioner (Vinod Kumar) sought a direction to the respondents — Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another — to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4) in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 09.11.2023 in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation alongwith connected matters. Finding that the issue raised in the petition already stood adjudicated by that judgment, Sandeep Sharma, J. held that no prejudice would be caused to either party in directing consideration thereof, and disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation in light of Vikram Singh's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. If the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioner in that judgment, similar benefits are to be extended. The authority was further directed to 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.8413 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.06.2025

_________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …...Petitioner Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

…....Resp

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, 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 09.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation alongwith connected matters . 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

2 -

issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court 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 (Annexure P-4) having been filed by the petitioner in light of Vikram Singh’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.

June 03, 2025 (shankar)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge