Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4476/2019 of SANT RAM Vs HRTC AND ANR on 31 December 2019
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4476 of 2019. Date of decision: December 31, 2019. Sant Ram. …..Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & anr. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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. 4476 of 2019.
Date of decision: December 31, 2019.
Sant Ram.
…..Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & anr. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. AshokKumar, Advocates. For the respondents:Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “i)That the respondents may be directed torelease/make actual payment of all remainingpensionary/retiral benefits to the petitioner as his claimis squarely covered by the judgment of this Court inCWP No. 3050/2014, titled Nek Ram v/s State of H.P. &others and CWP No. 357/2018, titled Ram Lal v/s HRTCand CWP No. 605/2019, titled Hukam Chand v/s HRTCand also the judgment dated 03.09.2019 rendered inCWP No. 1809/2019, titled Ranbir Singh Vs. HRTC &another.”
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see theJudgment? yes.Judgment? yes.
2. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in hisfavour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ramversus State of H.P. & others,decided on 17.07.2014. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate,representing the respondents, concedes that the petitioner isentitled to the reliefs prayed for, in view of the judgment of thisCourt in Nek Ram’s case supra. If that be so, similar treatmentbe extended to the petitioner herein also, as to the petitioner inthe above referred decision, in case the petitioner is alsosimilarly situated, within a period of three months from the dateof production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of thewrit petition and copy of judgment referred to above, by thepetitioner before the first respondent.
3. With these observations, the writ petition standsdisposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary),Judge.
December 31, 2019, (vs)
(Anoop Chitkara),
Judge.