Rakesh Rana vs State Of H.P. & Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment/order dated 24.1.2019, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. State

Administrative Tribunal in OA No.381 of 2019, titled as Rakesh Rana versus State of H.P.& others.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, (Annexure EÂ1), reveals that learned Tribunal below having taken note

of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the order dated 4th

April, 2018, passed by the Tribunal below in OA No.5858 of 2017, titled as Sonia Banyal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, directed the

respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid order and ordered that in case the petitioner is found

to be similarly situate, benefit in terms of aforesaid order be granted to him, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified

copy of the order/judgment. Since despite there being specific direction to do the needful within a period of three months, respondents have failed to

grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 4th April, 2018 passed in OA No.5858 of 2017, petitioner has approached this Court in

the instant proceedings.

Learned Deputy Advocate General while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and

presume that by now aforesaid judgment/order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with

within a period of two weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive

and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, within a period of two weeks, if not already done,

failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards

implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.