CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Luder Mani vs State Of H.P. And Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0288

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997 — Rule 16
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition No. 265 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 342 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16 of the HP High Court (Original Side) Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 17.8.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4912 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.4.2010, rendered by this Court of CWP(T) No. 5253 of 2008, titled Narain Singh V. State of HP and Ors, as upheld vide common judgment dated 1.9.2015 in LPA No. 146 of 2010, State of HP and Ors v. Narain Singh (along with connected matters), directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit to him, if he is found to be similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2.

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

3.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.