Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22985 (HP)

JAMNA DEVI v. HRTC AND ANR

CWP/13209/2025 · 2025-08-18

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13209 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jamna Devi …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 08.07.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3278 of 2021, titled Baldev Chand vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P- 2) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rahul Thakur, 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 pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Baldev Chand (supra). 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18,2025 (shankar)