Municipal Corporation Shimla vs Nand Lal

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of proforma respondents No. 2 and 3.

Aggrieved by the order passed by learned erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 12.7.2019, whereby the petitioner was directed to consider the case of the respondent in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, Mathu Ram versus Municipal Corporation and others, decided on 31.7.2014, it has filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive relief:

“(i) That the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 Annexure P­2 passed by Erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5740 of 2018 may be held illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

It would be noticed that the Tribunal in fact has not decided the issue on merits, but has left it to the petitioner to consider and decide the case of the respondent in the light of Mathu Ram’s judgment (supra), which is clearly evident from para­3 of the judgment, which reads as under:

“3. In view of the above, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment referred to above, to the applicant herein, in case he is similarly situated, within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order as well as copy of the aforementioned judgment before the respondents/competent authority.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the only impediment because of which the case of the respondent cannot be considered is the notification dated 11.4.2018. However, learned Additional Advocate General, representing proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 states that since this notification was contrary to law, therefore, the same has already been withdrawn much earlier to the filing of this petition.

As observed above, no effective rights of the respondent have been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal vide impugned order and the only direction therein was to consider and decide the case of the respondent.

Therefore we find no reason to entertain this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.