High CourtsSingle Bench

Angrej Singh vs R.P. Verma And Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 2 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0418

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 400 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 296 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgment dated 24.11.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 2995 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.3.2010, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 63 of 2008 had directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants strictly in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and grant similar benefit if he is found similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent states that judgment alleged to have been violated has been duly complied with. Careful perusal of reply having been filed by the respondents clearly reveals that applicant was afforded opportunity of personal hearing on 17.2.2018 and his case has been duly considered and rejected vide order dated 20.3.2018 (Annexure R-1).

3.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to continue with the aforesaid proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he is still aggrieved. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.