Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16260 (HP)

RAM SWAROOP v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/9377/2025 · 2025-06-05

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9377 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ram Swaroop …….Petitioners Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) in light of judgment dated 22.3.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7376 of 2023, titled H.P. Secretariat & Other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 05, 2025 (shankar)