MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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