High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramesh Chand vs Sandeep Bhatnagar

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 SHI CK 0209

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 457 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

19 paragraphs · 341 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

In this Contempt Petition, petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of the directions passed by learned Tribunal in O.A.No.6077 of 2017, titled as

Ramesh Chand Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, dated 06.12.2017, which stood disposed of by the learned Tribunal in the

following terms:Â​

“4. The learned vice counsel for the applicant submits at the very outset that the case of the applicant is squarely covered under judgment dated

17.7.2014, Annexure AÂ10, rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.3050 of 2014, Nek Ram Versus State of

Himachal Pradesh and others.

5.

The learned vice counsel states on behalf of the respondents that subject to verification of records, if it is found that the applicant is similarly situate

as the petitioner in the aforesaid CWP No.3050 of 2014, his case shall also be considered accordingly.

6.

In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment in CWP No.3050 of 2014, with a direction to

the respondents/ competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the

said judgment, if the same has attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, within three

months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority by the applicantâ€​.

2.

Today, the Court has been informed that the Gratuity with upÂtoÂdate interest stands paid to the petitioner, however, there is some dispute with

regard to leave encashment.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these proceedings can be closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court

afresh with regard to the issue of leave encashment, by way of appropriate proceedings.

4.

These contempt proceedings are closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of leave encashment by way of appropriate

proceedings, if so advised. Notices stand discharged. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.