Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14020 (HP)

TARUN BHAIKTA v. HPTDCL AND ANOTHER

EX.P./586/2025 · 2025-06-06

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex.PT No. 586 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tarun Kumar Bhaikta ……...Petitioner Versus HPTDC and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Aditya Sood and Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Maheshwari Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 27.2.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2851 of 2024, titled Tarun Bhaikta v. HPTDC and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with direction to Corporation to pay balance amount, if any, on account of DCRG and leave encashment within two weeks and arrears on account of revision of pay within four months to the petitioner. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the 2 respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Ms. Maheshwari Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, states that though she has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. June 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge