High CourtsSingle Bench

Finoo Ram vs Kumud Singh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 SHI CK 0042

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 377 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

16 paragraphs · 347 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the directions passed by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2563 of 2017, titled as Finoo Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others, which original

application stood disposed of by the learned Tribunal in the following terms:

“4. In view of the above, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit

of the judgment referred to above, to the applicant herein, in case he is similarly situate, within two months from today. The applicant shall produce a

certified copy of this order as well as copy of the judgment referred to above before the respondents/competent authority within a week.â€​

2.

Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter as to from which date an incumbent engaged on daily wage basis

is entitled for conferment of work charge status as far as respondentÂBoard is concerned, is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. He further submits that even otherwise, the case of the petitioner is not akin to that of Gian Singh’s case, reference of which has been

given by the learned Tribunal in the order passed by by it, contempt of which is alleged by way of this petition.

3.

Be that as it may, in my considered view, it will be appropriate to dispose of this contempt petition, but with a direction to the respondentÂBoard to

pass a speaking order in terms of the directions passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 2563 of 2017, decided on 28.07.2017 after hearing the

petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Needful be done by the competent authority within a period of four weeks. It goes without saying that in case the

petitioner is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the competent authority, then he shall be at liberty to agitate the same by way of appropriate

proceedings in the appropriate Court. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Notices stand discharged.