Tarsem Singh v. the Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Nov 2025EX.P./2333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tarsem Singh v. HRTC and Others; Execution Petition No.2333 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decision date 19.11.2025; Justice Sandeep Sharma (oral). Execution of judgment dated 09.04.2025 in CWP No.5341 of 2025 (release of gratuity within two months, failing which interest @ 9% from date of filing till realization); non-compliance by respondents; petition disposed of with four-week compliance direction and liberty to revive. Advocates: Mandeep Chandel (petitioner), Deepak Sharma (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed (judgment dated 09.04.2025 in CWP No.5341 of 2025) within a period of four weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition. ¶¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have complied with the direction in the judgment dated 09.04.2025 in CWP No.5341 of 2025 to release the petitioner's gratuity within two months, and what direction this Court should issue to secure its implementation.

¶¶7

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the petition alive and disposed of the execution petition with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within a period of four weeks.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Failing compliance within four 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.

¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.2333 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J., oral; decided 19.11.2025): Petitioner Tarsem Singh sought execution and implementation of judgment dated 09.04.2025 in CWP No.5341 of 2025, wherein the Court had directed the respondents (HRTC and Others) to ensure release of gratuity within two months, failing which interest @ 9% from the date of filing till realization was payable. As no action followed, the petitioner filed the instant petition. Counsel for the respondents stated the judgment had presumably been complied with and, if not, would be complied with within four weeks. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within four weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2333 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Shri Tarsem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶4

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 09.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.5341 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order:

¶6

“4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure the release of gratuity, as detailed hereinabove, within a period of two months from today in favour of the petitioner, failing which, respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization in favour of the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶7

Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶8

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment

¶9

¶10

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 four weeks from today.

¶11

Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing 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 sought to be executed, within a period of four 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.

¶12

November 19, 2025

¶13

(Rajeev Raturi)

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Tarsem Singh v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmesh Chand Vs Hrtc and Others

Roop Lal and Others Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Banita Kumari and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Paramjeet Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Kehar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Satya Pal Vs State of Hp and Others