Narsingh Dutt vs State Of H.P. And Ors

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16 of the HP High Court (Original Side) Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 1.11.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4695 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.7.2017, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1894 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors v. Bhaskar Ram and order dated 6.7.2017 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 5338 of 2016 titled Hero Devi v. State of HP, disposed of the petition with direction to the respondent/competent authority to extend the benefit of aforesaid judgment in favour of the petitioner, in case he is found to be similarly situate within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents fairly states that order/judgment alleged to have been not executed was not executed on account of pendency of petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 47105 of 2018, filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, laying therein challenge to judgment dated 6.7.2017, passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 5338 of 2016, but now since aforesaid SLP having been filed by the State has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.3.2019 (Annexure P-7), respondent-State has no option but to implement the judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. He fairly states that in view of the aforesaid background, needful shall be done within the shortest possible time.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful towards implementation of judgment alleged to have been not executed, within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.