Disposed¶11

Suraj Singh v. Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2025EX.P./2096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution Petition No. 2096 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 06.11.2025 by Sandep Sharma, J. (oral). Suraj Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others. Benefits granted in light of CWP No. 3097 of 2014 (Nand Lal v. HRTC): pension revised to Rs. 9375/-, arrears Rs. 63,448/- released vide communication dated 03.05.2023 to Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Daulatpur Chowk, Una. Petition disposed of as nothing survives; liberty reserved. Advocates: Manohar Lal Sharma (petitioner), Virender Singh Kanwar (respondents). Keywords: execution petition, HRTC, pension revision, arrears, disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as nothing remains to be adjudicated; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law qua any surviving grievance. ¶11

Suraj Singh Vs Hrtc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 2096 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 06.11.2025

¶4

_______________________________________ Suraj Singh Versus	________________ …….Petitioner
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others	… Respondents
_______________________________________ Coram:	_______________

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

While placing on record copy of communication dated 03.05.2023 addressed to the Branch Manager, Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Daulatpur Chowk, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh by the Financial Advisor & C.A.O., Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, learned counsel representing the respondents fairly states that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3097 of 2014, titled Nand Lal vs. Himachal Road

¶7

Transport Corporation and others , have granted him due and admissible benefits. Aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, reveals that his rate of pension has been revised to Rs. 9375/Arrears amounting to Rs.63,448/- has been also released in favour of

¶8

the petitioner.

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly same is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶13

November 06,2025 (shankar)

Suraj Singh v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Singh 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

Desh Raj Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rajiv Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Biri Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manisha Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Choudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surindra Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others