High CourtsSingle Bench

Desh Raj vs Dr. Sandeep Bhatnagar And Anr

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0319

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 449 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 · 336 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 directions contained in judgment dated 21.3.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1107 of 2018, 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 17.7.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and Ors., disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the applicant in light of aforesaid judgment and thereafter, grant similar benefit to him in case he is found to be 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.

Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that though she has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

3.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 respondents would aggravate the contempt and petitioner 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.