Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35785 (HP)

BHUPINDER SINGH v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

EX.P./2538/2025 · 2025-12-12

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2538 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhupinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated 11.12.2025, issued under the signatures of Works Manager, HRTC Jassur, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the respondents, states that mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with. 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that sums of Rs.11,07,192/- and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Rs.8,52,240/- stand paid to the petitioner on account of DCRG as well as leave encashment. 3. Learned counsel representing the respondents fairly states that interest on account of delayed payment as per statutes, if not already released, shall be released in favour of the petitioner expeditiously. 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that interest on account of delayed payment, if not already released, is released in favour of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from today, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (sunil)