High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashwani Kumar vs Sandeep Bhatnagar

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0281

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 566 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

5 paragraphs · 367 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 respondent for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order/judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in OA No.6161 of 2017, titled as Ashwani Kumar versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.

2.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, (Annexure P­1), 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, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. Since despite there being specific direction to do the needful within a period of three months, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Nek Ram's case supra, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3.

Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel representing the respondent while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though she 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 four weeks from today.

4.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent to do the needful within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, he 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 respondent is hereby discharged accordingly.