Dr. Suman Sharma vs Sanjay Gupta & Others

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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/ judgment dated 27.11.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 5707 of 2015 (a/w connected matters), whereby the Tribunal below while allowing the TA filed by the petitioner(s), directed the respondents/competent authority to consider respective cases of the petitioner(s) including the present petitioner for grant of grade pay of Rs. 6600/­ w.e.f. 7.8.2012, with all consequential benefits 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 towards the implementation of the judgment alleged to have been violated, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused reply filed by respondent No.1, this Court finds that respondent­ department being aggrieved and dis­satisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the Tribunal approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2710 of 2018, which is still pending adjudication. It is not in dispute inter­se parties that till date, no stay, whatsoever, has been granted by the Division Bench of this Court against the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Tribunal and as such, respondents are under obligation to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated.

Ms. Komal Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice on 7.12.2018, categorically observed in the order that prayer for interim stay shall be considered only if the Finance Department takes a conscious decision to grant pay band to Senior Lecturers, which must be higher than the Lecturers.

Having carefully perused aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is in agreement with learned Additional Advocate General that since interest of the petitioner has been protected by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP filed by the respondent­State, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid development, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, having taken note of the fact that judgment alleged to have been violated has been not stayed till date, this Court hopes and expects that competent authority would take necessary steps to comply with directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated as well as in order dated 7.12.2018, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, within a period of three 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 erring officials. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.