Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2214 (HP)

HARI DASS AND OTHERS v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/20923/2025 · 2026-01-02

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20923 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Hari Dass and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representation (Annexure P- 1) in light of judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled as “Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners. 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court - 2 - and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-1) having been filed by the petitioners in light of Nek Ram’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. January 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge