High CourtsSingle Bench

Het Ram vs Kumad Singh & Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 25 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 SHI CK 0285

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC No.245 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

17 paragraphs · 329 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

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 judgment dated 13.08.2020 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP

No.2815 of 2020, titled as Het Ram versus H.P.T.D.C & another.

2.

Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, alleged to have been violated, (Annexure C-1), reveals that Division Bench of this Court while disposing of

the petition, directed the respondents to release the admissible retiral benefits in accordance with law. It was further directed by Division Bench of this

Court that 50% of such benefits be released within two weeks from the date of the judgment and the remaining amount alongwith statutory interest be

released within two months thereafter. Since despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents have failed to

release the retiral benefits to the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3.

Mr. Naresh Kaul, 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 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.

4.

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

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.