IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12146 of 2008. Decided on 7.01.2011 Janki Ram ..…Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Vir Singh, Advocate vice Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 25.11.2009 rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 11414 of 2008, Parmod Singh versus HRTC and others, text whereof is as under: “The petitioner has assailed office order dated 10.6.2004 whereby penalty of recovery of Rs.1,00,655/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per months has been imposed upon the petitioner. Mr. Devinder Ghosh submits that the FIR was also registered after the accident had taken place. The petitioner was tried by the Criminal Court. He was acquitted by the Criminal Court. He has also produced a copy of letter dated 3.2.2009 for the perusal of the Court. A bare perusal of letter dated 3.2.2009 shows that a conscious decision has been taken by the management of the respondent-corporation that in such cases 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 where the drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, a recovery orders are to be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of original application by the official/driver concerned. The copy of letter dated 3.2.2009 is returned after its perusal. Accordingly, since the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Criminal Court, Annexure A-6 dated 10.6.2004 is quashed and sent aside. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.” 3. In view of the above, office order dated 01.6.2005, Annexure A-4, is quashed and the petition is disposed of with a direction that, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove and he is also a similarly situate person as the petitioner in the said case, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall also be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th January, 2011. (jai)