CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Lalit Kumar vs J.P. Kalta And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 2 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0422

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC(T) No. 418 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

4 paragraphs · 314 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 order/judgment dated 4.1.2018, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4993 of 2015, titled as Lalit Kumar and another vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, whereby Tribunal below while allowing the original application having been filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents­HPSEB Limited to hold fresh DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer against 60% and 20% quota, separately, with separate zone of consideration for the eligible incumbents. Learned Tribunal below vide aforesaid order/judgment further directed the respondents that petitioners in both the original applications are to be considered against 20% quota. Though, aforesaid exercise in terms of the order/judgment alleged to have been violated, was to be carried out within a period of three months from the date of production of certified of this order, but since no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal, applicant/ petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceeding.

2.

Though, in reply to the petition respondents took a stand that they have already filed review petition in the instant petition, seeking therein review of aforesaid order/judgment passed by the Tribunal below, but at this juncture, Mr. Anil Kumar God, learned counsel representing the respondents states that order/judgment alleged to have been violated stands implemented and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition.

3.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid statement made by learned learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of. Notice issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.