Prem Singh and Others v. Hrtc and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Jul 2025EX.P./889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution Petition 889/2025; Prem Singh & Ors. v. HRTC & Anr.; HP High Court Shimla; Sandep Sharma J; oral order 21.07.2025; judgment sought to be executed; dearness relief; Managing Director HRTC communication 19.07.2025; compliance within seven days; payment within six weeks; proceedings closed; liberty to revive execution; execution and implementation of judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to comply with the mandate of the judgment sought to be executed by paying due and admissible dearness relief within six weeks, with the amount positively disbursed/credited in the petitioner's bank account within seven days; liberty reserved to revive the execution proceedings if compliance is not effected within the stipulated time. ¶¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed has been complied with by the respondents, so that the present execution proceedings can be closed.

¶¶8

Court's answer

This Court found that, in terms of the judgment sought to be executed, the respondents have decided to pay due and admissible dearness relief to the petitioner within six weeks, and learned counsel for the respondents stated that the amount, if any, shall be positively disbursed/credited in the petitioner's bank account within seven days.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

As nothing remained to be adjudicated, the instant execution proceedings were closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to get the proceedings revived in case needful is not done within the stipulated time, enabling the Court to pass appropriate orders towards execution and implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.889 of 2025 — Prem Singh & Ors. v. HRTC & Anr. (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decision dated 21.07.2025). Oral order disposing of an execution petition. Counsel for the respondents placed on record a communication dated 19.07.2025 issued under the signatures of the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, undertaking positive compliance with the mandate of the judgment sought to be executed within seven days. The Court noted that, in terms of that judgment, the respondents had decided to pay due and admissible dearness relief to the petitioner within six weeks, and that counsel undertook disbursement/credit of the amount into the petitioner's bank account within seven days. Finding nothing left to adjudicate, the Court closed the proceedings, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the execution proceedings, with appropriate orders for execution and implementation, if compliance was not effected within the stipulated time. No monetary figure is stated in the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.889 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Prem Singh & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus HRTC & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. V.S.Kanwar, Advocate.

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

While placing on record communication dated 19.07.2025, issued under the signatures of Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, Ms. Sugandh Verma, learned vice counsel for the respondents, states that mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, shall be positively complied with within seven days.

¶9

2. Having perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds that in terms of judgment, sought to be executed, respondents have decided to pay due and admissible dearness relief to the petitioner within six weeks. Though in aforesaid communication, time of six weeks has been given, but learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that amount, if any, in terms

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

of aforesaid communication, shall be positively disbursed/credited in

¶13

the bank account of the petitioner within seven days.

¶14

3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to get the present proceedings revived, in case needful is not done within stipulated time, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders towards execution and implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶16

July 21, 2025 (sunil)

Prem Singh and Others v. Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh and Others v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shashi Rattan Vs State of Hp and Others

Anita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sandeep Vs the State of Hp and Others

Gajender Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajat Sondal Vs the MD Hpsfdcl