2025:HHC:38719 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17278 of 2025 Decided on: 17.11.2025 Kashmir Singh … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Ex. Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and give some time to ply the truck with the respondent corporation, in the interest of law and justice. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the present petitioner to ply his truck at Bagha.” 2. When this case was listed on 06.11.2025 the following order was passed:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:38719 “CWP No. 17278 of 2025 & CMP No. 26549 of 2025 Notice. Mr. Mukul Sood, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that in his capacity as an Ex. Serviceman, the petitioner was enrolled by the respondents for the attachment of his Truck for transportation of Cement/Clinker vide order dated 21.10.2024, however, as the petitioner was not able to purchase a Truck within the time period as was mentioned in the communication, he has approached this Court for extension of time. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in light of the fact that the petitioner was not able to have his Truck attached within the stipulated time period, therefore, his attachment already stands cancelled. This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the attachment of his Truck in his capacity as an Ex Servicemen with the respondent-Corporation as per his seniority and as in terms of order dated 21.10.2024, the order attachment of Truck for transportation of cement/Clinker was issued in favour of the petitioner and if the petitioner was not able to purchase a Truck due to some monetary restraint, as has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation should have been slightly sympathetic to the cause of the petitioner. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the respondent- Corporation to have 3 2025:HHC:38719 instructions whether the Truck of the petitioner can be attached if he purchases the same before 31.12.2025. The petitioner shall have to give an undertaking that he will not claim for attachment of his Truck with a particular cement company and will agree for the attachment thereof with the company respondent- Corporation directs. List on 11.11.2025 to enable learned Counsel for the parties to have instructions.” 3. Today learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has ended over a copy of Instruction, dated 10.11.2025, which are taken on record and which are reproduced hereinbelow: “1. Please refer to your e-mail dated 07.11.2025 with reference to the Hon’ble High Court of HP order dated 06.11.2025 on the subject cited above, in this context, it is submitted that ample opportunities have already been given to Shri Kashmir Singh for attachment of his truck. 2. However, if the Hon’ble Court deems it fit to provide one more chance to Shri Kashmir Singh for attachment of his truck, the order of Hon’ble Court will be implemented with terms and conditions as laid down in the order dated 06.11.2025.” 4. In light of the Instructions, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the truck of the petitioner be attached in terms of contents of the order passed by this Court on 06.11.2025, but after the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not seek 4 2025:HHC:38719 attachment of his truck with a particular cement employee and will agree for the attachment thereof with the company, the respondent- Corporation directs the truck to be attached. This order will be effective only if the petitioner purchases the truck and offers it for the purpose of attachment to the respondent-Corporation on or before 31.12.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 17, 2025 (Rishi)