Vijay Kumar vs. Hrtc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No.3715 of 2015

Date of Decision: 25.08.2015

Sh. Vijay Kumar ……Petitioner.

Versus

H.R.T.C.& another …..Respondents.

Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ¹No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. For Respondents: Mr. B.N.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

In view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition, reserving liberty to seek recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including filing a representation to appropriate authorities, bringing out the circumstances, under which, his case is allegedly covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled as Nek Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on 17.07.2014.

2. Liberty granted.

¹ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. As such, petition is disposed of with a direction that as and when any request is received by respondent/competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, on its merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously within a period of six weeks, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing/ representation to the petitioner. Needless to add, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to all concerned, including the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum on the same cause of action, if need so arises subsequently. In the event of matter being decided in favour of the petitioner, all consequential benefits shall follow in terms of Nek Ram (supra).

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

August 25, 2015 Judge. (Shankar)

( P.S.Rana)