High CourtsSingle Bench

Pushpa Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 SHI CK 0076

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997 — Rule 16
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition (T) No. 76 Of 2021
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

15 paragraphs · 310 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Rule 16 of Himachal Pradesh High Court Original Writ Rules, 1997, prayer has been made for implementation

of order dated 27.3.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 15 of 2018, titled Pushpa Devi vs. The State

of H.P. and others, whereby learned Tribunal, on the basis of statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of

petitioner is covered by judgment dated 8.3.2018 rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh vs. the State of

Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of

the petitioner for grant of pension in light of order (supra), within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Since the

respondents have failed to implement the order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings, seeking implementation of the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

2.

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, stated that though he has reasons

to believe that the order in question stands implemented, but if not, same would be complied with, within a period of two weeks.

3.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive

and same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order (supra), within two weeks, failing which petitioner

would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate steps towards execution of the order in question are taken. Petition stands

disposed of in above terms.