Dr. Aruna Gautam vs Sanjay Gupta & Another

Sandeep Sharma, J

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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order/judgment dated 25.8.2017, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4320 of 2017, titled as Dr. Aruna Gautam vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment dated 25.08.2017, reveals that learned Tribunal below having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioner that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.12595/2008, titled as Dr. Amin Chand versus State of H.P. and others and the connected matters, decided on 7.8.2012 and upheld in LPA No.535 of 2012, titled State of H.P. and others versus Dr. Gopal Sharma and the connected matters, decided on 14.8.2013, disposed of the original application with the direction to the respondents/ competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, if she is found to be similarly situate, within a period of two months. Since no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, applicant/ petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents fairly states that by now aforesaid order/judgment alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to comply with the order/judgment,alleged to have been violated,within a period of three weeks, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents is hereby discharged accordingly.