High CourtsSingle Bench

Rattan Lal vs State Of H.P. And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 1 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 SHI CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh Court Writ Rules And Orders, 1997 — Rule 16(I), 16(II), 16(III)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition (T) No. 453 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

15 paragraphs · 310 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Rule 16(I) to 16(III) of HP High Court Writ Rules and Orders, 1997 (as amended upto date) prayer has been

made for the execution of order dated 2.4.2019 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1159 of 2019 titled Rattan

Lal vs. The State of H.P. and others, whereby learned Tribunal, having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 8.3.2018 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, Sunder

Singh vs. . The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and the connected matters, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents

to extend benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of order, subject to his

being similarly situate person. Since the respondents failed to comply the aforesaid order passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking execution of the order in question.

2.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to believe that the order in question stands

implemented, but if not, same would be complied with, within a period of four 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 in question, within four 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.