COPCT/129/2019 on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

COPCT No.129 of 2019 Decided on 31.12.2019 __________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Petitioners

Versus

Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Ors. …..Respondents __________________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocates General. __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order dated 16.7.2019, passed by the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2744 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their case/claim is squarely covered by judgment dated 3.11.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 2114 of 2008 Mukesh Manhas and Ors. V. Sate of HP and Anr and order dated 21.7.2017 passed by the Tribunal in TA No. 4641 of 2015, disposed of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

application with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and ordered that in case petitioners are found to be similarly situate, benefit of the aforesaid judgment may also be extended to them within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents-contemnors after the expiry of time period stipulated by this Court, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents- contemnors states that though by now, judgment in question must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, this Court sees no reason to continue with the aforesaid proceedings and accordingly same are closed. However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the respondents-contemnors. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.

Authenticated copy. 31st December, 2019

(Sandeep Sharma), manjit

Judge