To ensure timely compliance ordered if needful is not done within the said period, respondent would be entitled to 9% interest and it has no specific findings qua applicability. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board through its Secretary and another v. Sh. Govind Ram Sharma [LPA No. 140 of 2009] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma.
The Appeal was filed to impugned judgment passed in the case titled as Kali Ram Sharma Vs. The HPSEB, whereby writ petition had been filed by the respondent came to be disposed of. The ground as had been raised on behalf of the appellants is that since case at hand was not covered with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3250 of 2006, titled as Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others Versus Ram Sarup Ganda and others, decided on 2.8.2006. This Court find no merit in the aforesaid submission for the reasons that there is no positive direction, if any, issued by the Court with regard to extension of benefits in terms of judgment rendered by Apex Court, rather judgment clearly reveals that counsel representing respondent after having heard submission made by learned counsel for the appellants agreed for release of consequential benefits and as such Court just to ensure timely compliance ordered that if needful is not done within the said period, respondent would be entitled to 9% interest. It also emerged from the judgment that no specific findings qua applicability of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of appellants ever came to be rendered on record and as such there appears to be no merit in the present appeal and accordingly deserves outright rejection.
The court was of the view that, ‘Though in the grounds of appeal, it has been stated by learned counsel representing appellants that at the time of passing of judgment dated 14.5.2009 counsel representing appellants had no instructions from the department to give concession but even aforesaid plea deserves rejection being devoid of merit for the reasons that bare perusal of the judgment nowhere suggest that learned counsel representing appellants gave concession, if any, rather he on the basis of prayer made by the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment, supra, assured this Court that needful shall be done within the stipulated time.’
The court disposed of the case stating that, ‘there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.’