Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 211 (HP)

Budhi Parkash v. State of H. P.

2021-04-06

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, RAVI MALIMATH

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. This petition has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 22.3.2016 passed in O.A. No. 4916 of 2015, titled Budhi Parkash versus State of H.P. and others has not been executed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the said order and contends that since the direction therein has not been complied with, appropriate order be passed by this Court. 3. The same is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents by contending that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the case of the petitioner has been reconsidered and order dated 17.8.2016 has been passed, therefore, the order of the court having been complied with and no further orders are called for. 4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 5. Para-8 of the order of learned Tribunal reads as follow: “8. Consequently, Annexure P-2 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status after completion of 8 years service with all consequential benefits.” 6. The direction therein is to reconsider the case of the applicant. It is undisputed that the case of the petitioner has been reconsidered, however, what is contended by the petitioner is reconsideration means a grant of the work charge status. It is his contention that the entire judgment deals with the said issue and, therefore, there has been disobedience that work charge status has to be granted. Non-grant of work charge status amounts to disobedience and non-compliance of the said order. 7. We do not find that any such interpretation requires to be considered by this Court. This is the petition where the language of the order becomes very important. The direction was only to reconsider, therefore, the respondents have reconsidered. There is no direction to grant any status to the petitioner. When the direction is only to reconsider and the respondents have reconsidered, we do not think it is appropriate for us to go beyond the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find that the order in question has not been followed by the respondents. On the contrary, the direction was to reconsider the case of the petitioner and respondents have reconsidered the same. Consequently, nothing survives further for consideration. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application is also dismissed.