Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18545 (HP)

SAWROOP SINGH v. HRTC AND ANOTHER

CWP/10538/2025 · 2025-07-03

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10538 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sawroop Singh …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment i.e. w.e.f. 22-09-2024, with all consequential benefits, alongwith upto date interest. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 23-12-2024 i.e. Annexure P-3 within time bound manner in the interest of justice and fair play. iii) That or in alternative, the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner immediately after one year i.e. in 2005, by modifying regularization order dated 23-05-2013 with all consequential benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner have already been adjudicated in Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh 2 CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 09.11.2023.