Himmat Ram vs Devesh Kumar

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 respondent for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the order/judgment dated 1.11.2017, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 897 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the counsel representing petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 24.9.2014, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 7140 of 2012, titled as Gian Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if he is found to be similarly situate, within a period of two months. Since no action, whatsoever, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for implementation of aforesaid order/judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Reply having been filed by the respondent reveals that pursuant to aforesaid judgment passed by Tribunal below, respondent-department had filed CWP No. 2900 of 2018. Since Division Bench of this Court found no illegality in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal below, it refused to interfere with the same, however, ordered that in case claim of the respondent-petitioner herein, is not found to be similar, petitioner-respondent herein, shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two months. After passing of aforesaid order, case of the petitioner came to be considered. Supplementary affidavit dated 28.5.2019 filed by Chief Nodal Officer-cum- Secretary Election, Himachal Pradesh reveals that respondent-authority after having found petitioner entitled to pension forwarded his case to Accountant General (A&E), HP for sanctioning pension and other retiral benefits vide communication dated 4.5.2019 Annexure R-2 but till date no pension as well as other retiral benefits have been released in favour of the petitioner.

Learned Additional Advocate General having perused the aforesaid supplementary affidavit filed by Chief Nodal Officer-cum-Secretary Election, HP., contends that once decision has been taken to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated, petitioner is entitled to the benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in Gian Singh's case (supra). Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits before this Court that though by now judgment alleged to have been violated would have been implemented, but if not, same shall positively be implemented within a period of six weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to respondent to ensure that pension case of the petitioner, lying pending with the office of the Accountant General, is cleared within a period of six weeks, failing which respondent 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. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.