Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/188/2014 of GANESH KUMAR Vs J.S WALIA on 31 December 2014
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 188 of 2014 Decided on: 31.12.2014 Ganesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Shri J.S. Walia …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 188 of 2014
Decided on: 31.12.2014
Ganesh Kumar
Shri J.S. Walia
Versus
…Petitioner.
…Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: For the respondent:
Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel & Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Advocates.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice(Oral)
It is contended that the respondent has not complied with directions, dated 3[rd] April, 2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 229 of 2009.
2. It is apt to reproduce the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 229 of 2009 herein:
"Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.3.2010, rendered by this Court in PhoolMayaversus State of H.P. & others, CWP(T) No. 10220 of 2008.
2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs."
3. In terms of para 2 of the operative part of the judgment, the Writ Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment, dated 17[th] March, 2010, rendered by this Court in Phool Maya versus State of H.P. & others, CWP (T) No. 10220 of 2008. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment in Phool Maya's case (supra) herein:
"7. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to give work-charge status to petitioner strictly in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra) with all consequential benefits and such decision be taken within a period of six weeks from today."
4. The respondent has considered the case of the petitioner, passed consideration order and has stated that the case of the petitioner is not covered by Phool Maya's case (supra).
5. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent is in contempt. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy.
6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice
December 31, 2014 ( rajni )
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge