Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4462/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4462 of 2019 Date of decision : 30.12.2019 Kuldeep Singh … Petitioner.
Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others …Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(a) That the respondents Corporation may kindly be directed to release the amount(s) of death -cum- retirement gratuity, leave encashment and arrear of dearness allowance 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2… to the petitioner immediately or within a time bound manner.
(b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2019 on the aforesaid pending/withheld pensionary benefits of the petitioner till such benefits are granted/ released to him.”
2. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 17.7.2014. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate representing the respondent, concedes that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, in view of the judgment of this Court in Nek Ram’s case supra. If that be so, similar treatment be extended to the petitioner herein also as to the petitioner in the above referred decision, in case the petitioner is also similarly situated, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of
…3… this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and copy of judgment referred to above, by the petitioner before the first respondent. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge 30th December, 2019 (KS)