Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27504 (HP)

SUNIL KUMAR v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/2649/2025 · 2025-03-27

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2649 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar (Retired Holster) …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Nek Ram’s case (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 petitioners 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)