Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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