Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32054 (HP)

BHAGAT CHAND v. HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/16135/2025 · 2025-10-14

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16135 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhagat Chand …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner 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 case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram’s case (supra), expeditious- ly, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judg- ment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, au- thority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speak- ing order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 14, 2025 (manjit)