Madan Lal Vs Hrtc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Madan Lal Vs Hrtc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment dated 3.4.2024 (CWP No. 10609 of 2023) alleged to have been violated, within eight weeks; failing which the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order/judgment dated 3.4.2024 in CWP No. 10609 of 2023, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 22.3.2024 in CWP No. 7376 of 2023 within eight weeks, remained unimplemented and should now be executed. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondents were directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment dated 3.4.2024 alleged to have been violated, within a period of eight weeks.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the present execution petition alive and disposed of the same.

Key takeaways

Failing compliance within eight weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution petition (Ex.PT No. 1214 of 2024) filed by Madan Lal seeking implementation of the judgment dated 3.4.2024 in CWP No. 10609 of 2023 (Madan Lal v. HRTC and Ors.), whereby the coordinate Bench had directed HRTC to consider and decide his case in light of the judgment dated 22.3.2024 in CWP No. 7376 of 2023 (Himachal Pradesh Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioner Welfare Association v. State of H.P.) within eight weeks. Counsel for the respondents stated before the Court that compliance had been, or would definitely be, made within eight weeks. On this fair stand, Sandeep Sharma, J. disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the violated judgment within eight weeks, failing which the petitioner was left at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs or quantum awarded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Ex.PT No. 1214 of 2024 Date of Decision: 4.1.2025

Madan Lal

……...Petitioner Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

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

For the petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 3.4.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10609 of 2023, titled Madan Lal v. HRTC and Ors., whereby petition came to be disposed of with direction to the respondent corporation to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 22.3.2024 passed in CWP No. 7376 of 2023, titled as Himachal Pradesh Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioner Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid

2

direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of eight weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment.

January 4, 2025

(manjit)