Disposed¶15

Harmesh Chand v. Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Nov 2025EX.P./2293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution Petition 2293 of 2025, HP High Court Shimla, decided 18.11.2025 by Justice Sandeep Sharma. Harmesh Chand v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Seeks execution of judgment dated 18.07.2025 in CWP No. 11533 of 2025 directing payment of dearness relief per office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021. Petition disposed of on counsel's statement; respondents to comply within two weeks, else revival permitted.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondents to implement/execute the order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 11533 of 2025 (payment of due and admissible dearness relief per office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021) within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the present proceedings. ¶15

Harmesh Chand Vs Hrtc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to implement/execute the order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 11533 of 2025 (payment of due and admissible dearness relief per office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021). +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The respondents were directed to do the needful in terms of the order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive and disposed of it.

¶15

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 2293 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, Judge; decided 18.11.2025) disposed of. Petitioner Harmesh Chand sought enforcement of this Court's order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 in CWP No. 11533 of 2025, whereby the respondents/Himachal Road Transport Corporation were directed to pay due and admissible dearness relief in terms of office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021 within six weeks. Counsel for the respondents stated that compliance would be effected within two weeks if not already done. Relying on this fair statement, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the order dated 18.07.2025 positively within two weeks, failing which the petitioner was granted liberty to seek revival of the proceedings for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 2293 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 18.11.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Harmesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate.

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 11533 of 2025, titled Shri Harmesh Chand vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.

¶10

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents/ competent authority to pay due and admissible dearness relief to the petitioner in terms of office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

have failed to do so, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶14

Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

¶15

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

¶16

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶17

November 18,2025 (shankar)

Harmesh Chand v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmesh Chand 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

Mahesh Raj Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jagar Nath and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Devender Kumar Vs the UOI and Another

Roop Lal and Others Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Banita Kumari and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dhiraj Ram and Ors. Vs Aashish Kumar Kohli