High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 06 SHI CK 0010

Ram Kumar Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 1 June 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition No. 1 of 2012 in CWP (T) No. 4274 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 262 words

Surinder Singh, J.—In CWP No. 4274 of 2008 petitioner herein challenged the order dated 1.12.1996 passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (PW) to the Government of H.P. against the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1188/- from him. Vide judgment dated 24.4.2009 the impugned order was quashed by this Court with the direction to the respondents to pass fresh order by assigning reasons, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with in a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment and it was left open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas which were raised in the aforesaid petition, before the Disciplinary Authority.

2.

The petitioner, vide letter at flag "A" dated 21.3.2012 requested that the order aforesaid was not complied with. This letter was ordered to be taken as an Execution Petition. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General on 3.5.2012 had put in appearance for the respondents. Accordingly he was directed to file status report with respect to compliance of the judgment/order aforesaid.

3.

Today the record has been produced. Vide order dated 7.7.2009 the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of H.P. has finally disposed of the matter maintaining the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1188/- from the petitioner and the request of the petitioner was disallowed. As such the judgment stands compiled with. Therefore, the execution petition is dismissed. Record is returned. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Secretary (PW), he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law.