Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras 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