Disposed

Sheela Devi v. the Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026EX.P./2050/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an execution petition after noting that the respondent corporation had complied with the earlier writ court direction by passing a speaking order on the petitioner's representation regarding pension eligibility. The court held nothing further remained to be adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition disposed of as the respondent corporation complied with the earlier writ court direction by passing a speaking order on the petitioner's representation.

Sheela Devi Vs the Hrtc and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:40035

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

Ex. Pet. No.2050 of 2026

¶4

Decided on: 18^th September, 2026

Sheela Devi

....Petitioner

versus

Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate.

¶12

For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶14

Notice. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

Learned counsel representing the respondents has produced a copy of order dated 15^th /16^th July, 2026 passed by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-171003, which is taken on record.

¶16

This Court while disposing of the writ petition filed

¶17

by the petitioner on 27.08.2025 had only given direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation

¶18

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

2026:HHC:40035

¶20

¶21

made by her within a period of six weeks, by passing a detailed and speaking order. It has been observed in the order that the petitioner does not fall within the category of pensioners presently eligible under the existing decision of the Corporation. The claim made in the representation is not legally sustainable at this stage and does not confer any enforceable right. Her claim can be considered only if and when an appropriate decision is taken by the competent authority in this regard.

¶22

Once the respondent-Corporation has taken a decision, the mandate contained in the judgment dated 27.08.2025 passed in CWP No.13330 of 2025, titled, Sheela Devi vs. HRTC & others , has been complied with and nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and the same is closed. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, she may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶23

The execution petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

Sheela Devi v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Devi v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases