Rakesh Kumar And Anr vs Manmohan Sharma

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgment dated 26.4.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1384 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.11.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008 Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh v. State of HP and Anr (alongwith connected matters), further upheld vide judgment dated 13.12.2012 in LPA No. 108 of 2012, The State of HP and Ors. v. Rakesh Chand and Ors, disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants strictly in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and grant similar benefit, if they are found similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused reply filed by respondent No.1, this Court finds that judgment dated 26.4.2017 passed by the Tribunal stands duly complied with. In para 4 of the reply, it has been categorically stated that Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Mandi, in compliance of aforesaid judgment dated 26.4.2017, passed in OA No. 1384 of 2017, has passed speaking order dated 8.5.2012. Aforesaid officer has also supplied the list of OA to all the Block Elementary Education Officers of Mandi District with further direction to pay due and admissible benefits to the applicants in the light of judgment passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 /2008 (OA/ No. 2154 /1999) and in COPC No. 456 of 2014 by restricting their claims in accordance with the Finance Department instructions dated 15.12.2011.

Having carefully perused aforesaid reply, this Court does not find action of the respondents to be contumacious and deems it proper to close the proceedings. Ordered accordingly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if they are still aggrieved. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.