High CourtsSingle Bench

Prakash Chand vs G.S. Goraiya And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 30 June 2020 · Citation: (2020) 06 SHI CK 0110

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Contempt Of Counts) Rules. 1989 — Rule 3, 7 · Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 17 · Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 12
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC (T) No. 351 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 · 285 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present petition filed under S.17 of Administrative Tribunals Act read with Rules 3 and 7 of the HP Administrative Tribunals (Contempt of Courts) Rules 1989 and S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally violated order dated 2.5.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6964 of 2016, titled Prakash Chand vs. State of HP and others, whereby learned Tribunal below, having taken note of the statement of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgments dated 27.8.1991 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3018-21 of 1987, Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others and connected matters, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109, directed the respondents to extend the benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, if on verification, he is found to be similarly situate, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

2.

Perusal of reply filed by the respondents reveals that vide order dated 26.3.2018 (Annexure R-I), petitioner stands promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger with effect from 29.2.2016 i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted. In view of above order in question stands duly complied with and this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive.

In view of above, present proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, qua surviving grievance(s), if so required and desired.