Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.PT/102/2019 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 AT SHIMLA
Execution Petition(T) No. 102 of 2019 Decided on: December 30, 2019 ____________________________________________________________ Jitender Parsad
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant execution petition filed under Rule 16 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Writ Rules, prayer has been made for implementation and execution of order dated 9.12.2016 passed by Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6132 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal having noticed consent of the parties, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No. 105/2010, The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Rakesh Chand & others and connected matters, decided on 13.12.2012. Vide aforesaid order, Tribunal further directed that in case petitioner Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11361 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:42 :::CIS
- 2 - is found to be similarly situate to that of the petitioners in aforesaid case, he would be granted similar benefit. Since no action, whatsoever, ever came to be taken pursuant to aforesaid direction contained in the order alleged to have been violated, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while waiving notice on behalf of the respondents, stated that though by now order alleged to have been violated must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied positively within a period of ten days from today.
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 dated 9.12.2016 (supra), within ten days, 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. An authenticated copy of supplied to Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar learned Additional Advocate General, for compliance.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 30, 2019 (Vikrant) High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11361 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:42:42 :::CIS