Gian Chand vs Sandeep Bhatnagar And Anr

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 judgment dated 29.6.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3676 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.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused communication dated 15.5.2019, this Court finds that Financial Advisor & CAO of HRTC, Shimla, has already directed the Branch Manager, HP State Co-operative Bank Limited, Hatwar, District Bilaspur, to make arrangements for payment of commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 4, 74, 334/- in respect of PPO No. HRTC/5750 i.e. Gian Chand Driver (Rtd.). Similarly, this Court finds that vide aforesaid PPO, pension of the petitioner Gian Chand has been fixed @ Rs. 7083/- per month after commutation. Communication dated 15.5.2019, further reveals that DCRG not exceeding Rs. 7,45, 834/- has been also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that though amount stands sanctioned, but till date, arrears on account of pension have not been released in favour of the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that though he 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.

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 pay the arrears on account pension, if not already paid 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.