Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 554 (HP)

Surender Kumar v. State of H. P.

2023-12-18

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of the present Execution Petition No.453 of 2023, the petitioner is seeking implementation/execution of the judgment, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4786 of 2023, titled as Surender Kumar Versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.07.2023, Annexure E-2. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 12.1.2023 passed in LPA No.165 of 2021 (State of HP and others vs. Surajmani & another and the connected matters). Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Surajmani, supra, within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.” 3. In terms of the judgment dated 26.07.2023, Annexure E-2, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have neither considered nor decided the case of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani & another and connected matters, despite the fact that the stipulated period, granted by this Court, has already elapsed. 4. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the State Authorities have filed the SLP against the judgment in case of Surajmani (supra), which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, he submits that the appropriate consideration order, in terms of the judgment, shall be passed within six weeks from today, in case, the requisite orders have not been passed as yet. However, he submits that the appropriate consideration order, in terms of the judgment, shall be passed within six weeks from today, in case, the requisite orders have not been passed as yet. Statement made by the learned State Counsel is taken on record. 5. In view of the statement so made by the learned State Counsel, the instant proceedings are closed, with the directions to the respondents to pass the requisite consideration order, in terms of the judgment dated 26.07.2023 [Annexure E-2] within six weeks from today. 6. However, it is clarified that, upon consideration, in case the respondents extend the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the judgment in Surajmani’s case (supra), notwithstanding the pendency of the SLP, then the release of benefits, including monetary benefits, if any, shall be only after seeking an undertaking/bond from the petitioner. 7. In case, the judgment is not complied with, the petitioner, is at liberty to seek revival of the present proceedings after six weeks.