Disposed¶14

Aman Kumar v. the Hrtc and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC22 May 2025CWP/8485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.8485 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), Sandeep Sharma, J., decided 22.5.2025; Aman Kumar v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.; direction to decide pending representation (Annexure P-6) in light of Vikram Singh v. HRTC, CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (DB, 09.11.2023); similarly situated employees; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; six weeks timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) in light of Vikram Singh's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situated. ¶14

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8485 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 22.5.2025 _________________________________________________________ Aman Kumar

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

¶5

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

¶6

Coram

¶7

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

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate.

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶11

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.

¶12

¶13

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 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.

¶14

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-6) 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.

¶15

May 22, 2025

¶16

(shankar)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Aman Kumar v. the Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar v. the Hrtc and Another

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

Bakeel Singh Vs the Hrtc and Another

Suresh Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Maya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amin Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Khema Nand Vs the Hptdcl and Another

Amar Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others