Narayan Dass And Ors vs Sushil Srivastav And Another

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 directions contained in order/judgment dated 9.8.2017, passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) No. 484 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal below while allowing the OA filed by the petitioner quashed communication dated 9.6.2016 and directed the respondents to allow GPF numbers to the petitioners within a period of two months. Since no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for implementation of aforesaid order/judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

There is no plausible explanation rendered on record by the respondents in their reply to the contempt petition for non-implementation of judgment alleged to have been violated, save and except that they after having obtained opinion of Law Department are in process of assailing the judgment alleged to have been violated in the Superior Court of law. Though having perused reply filed by the respondent, this Court finds that Law Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh after having perused judgment in question had categorically opined that there appears to be no reason for filing further proceedings, if any, in the Superior Court of law, but despite that department processed the case for filing appeal before appropriate Court of law.

Learned Additional Advocate General was unable to point out Civil Writ Petition, if any, filed by the respondent-department against the judgment alleged to have been violated. In the reply, it has been taken note herein above, there is no specific reference of the writ petition and as such, this Court has reason to presume and believe that till date no stay, if any, has been granted by this Court against the judgment alleged to have been violated and as such respondent has no option but to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner as granted in his favour, vide judgment alleged to have been violated. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that necessary action in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated shall be taken by the respondent within a period of four weeks, if not already taken.

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 is closed with the direction to respondent to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated, if not already implemented, within a period of four 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.