"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News