COPCT/1175/2020 on 31 December 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPCT No.1175 of 2020

Date of Decision: 31.12.2020 _______________________________________________________________________ Himmat Ram

Petitioner

Versus

Sandeep Kumar, Managing Director & another …..Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhender Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate,

through video-conferencing

For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, through

video-conferencing. Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order/judgment dated 31.07.2018, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in OA No.4436 of 2018, titled as Sh. Himat Ram versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, (Annexure C-1), reveals that learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if he is found to be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. 2020:HHC:10396 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 23:47:08 :::CIS

2 similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, applicant/ petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3.

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondents while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of six weeks from today.

4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful within a period of six weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid order/judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against erring official. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge December 31, 2020 (shankar)

High Court of H.P. 2020:HHC:10396 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2026 23:47:08 :::CIS