High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhawan Lata vs Rohit Jamwal

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0352

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC-T No. 465 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 · 303 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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the order/judgment dated 21.3.2018, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1112 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the counsel representing petitioner that her case is squarely covered by judgment dated 14.9.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, titled as Narender Singh Naik Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, as upheld vide judgment dated 9.4.2013 in LPA No. 271 of 2011, titled as State of HP and others Vs. Narender Singh Naik, passed by Division Bench of this Court, disposed of the petition with direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and thereafter, grant similar benefits to her, in case she is found to be similarly situate, within a period of three months. Since no action, whatsoever, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for implementation of aforesaid order/judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2.

Having carefully perused reply filed by the respondent, this Court finds that vide order dated 7.8.2018, case of the petitioner stands duly considered in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and as such, this Court does not find action of the respondent to be contumacious.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and same is closed accordingly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she is still aggrieved. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.