Kadar Mohd And Others vs Sanjay Gupta And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order/judgment dated 25.8.2017, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.5031 of 2016, titled as Kadar Mohd. And others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the Tribunal below while taking note of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that their case is squarely covered by judgment dated 14.9.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, titled as Narender Singh Naik Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with the direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in Narender Singh Naik's case, if on verification, petitioners are found to be similarly situate, within two months. Since no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondent after passing of order/judgment, petitioners approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Having carefully perused the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, this Court finds that pursuant to judgment alleged to have been violated, representation having been filed by the petitioners came to be considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 25. 7.2018. Having carefully perused the order dated 25.7.2018, this Court finds no force in the arguments of the petitioners that their case has not been considered in light of aforesaid judgment, rather, the competent authority has considered the case of the petitioners in light of judgment mentioned in the order alleged to have been violated and on finding that the petitioners are not similarly situate to that of the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, their case has been rejected.

In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings, which are accordingly closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to ffile appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if so desired and required.