Hans Ram vs Dr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Managing Director

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 8.8.2017, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in OA(M) No.106 of 2016, titled as Hans Raj versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if he is found to be similarly situate within a period of two months from today. 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. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel representing the respondents while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 do the needful within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid order/judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against erring official. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.