Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Re-Employment Must Be Disclosed,’ Affirms Delisting of Trucks by Ex-Servicemen Corporation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a landmark decision, has upheld the delisting of trucks owned by ex-servicemen who concealed their re-employment status after release from the Army. The common judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma on May 8, 2024, addressed multiple writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation. The ruling underscores the necessity for transparency and adherence to the rules governing the attachment of trucks by re-employed ex-servicemen.

The case involves several petitions filed by ex-servicemen against the orders of the Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation, which delisted their trucks due to the concealment of re-employment status. The key legislation in question is the Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation Rules, which, following a Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, mandates that re-employed ex-servicemen must surrender their truck attachment rights. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, setting a precedent for the current case.

Compliance with Division Bench Ruling: Justice Sharma’s judgment heavily referenced the Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh’s case, which dictates that re-employed ex-servicemen are not entitled to attach their trucks. “In case the ex-serviceman is re-employed, his truck will not be attached and if his truck has already been attached, he shall have to surrender his right to get the truck attached,” stated the Court, reiterating the need for compliance with these directives.

Impact on Waiting List: The Court noted the significant number of ex-servicemen waiting for their turn to attach trucks. “3571 ex-servicemen are currently waiting for their turn. Allowing those not entitled to continue would indefinitely delay opportunities for those on the waiting list,” the judgment observed. This highlights the necessity of adhering to established guidelines to maintain fairness in the allocation process.

Legal Reasoning: The judgment stressed that the impugned orders were consistent with the directives from the Baldev Singh case, which had attained finality. “If the impugned orders passed in the cases at hand are perused, the same can be said to be in conformity with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh,” the

judgment stated. This reinforces the principle that ex-servicemen must relinquish their truck attachment rights upon re-employment to ensure equitable opportunities for others.

Justice Sandeep Sharma asserted, “If the impugned orders are perused, they can be said to be in conformity with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh.” He further noted, “Taking note of the fact that some time will be consumed in sorting out the names from the waiting list, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent-Corporation to permit the petitioners to ply their trucks until the new names are finalized.”

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of the petitions reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring transparency and adherence to rules regarding re-employment status and truck attachment rights. By affirming the Corporation’s delisting orders, the judgment upholds the principles established in the Baldev Singh ruling and ensures that those on the waiting list are given fair opportunities. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on the regulation and management of truck attachments for ex-servicemen in Himachal Pradesh.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024

Kanta Devi & Ors. Vs. HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation & Another

Latest Legal News