High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravinder Kumar vs Onkar Sharma And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 30 June 2020 · Citation: (2020) 06 SHI CK 0116

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 17 · Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 10, 12
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC (T) No. 340 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 · 276 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present petition filed under S.17 of Administrative Tribunals Act read with Ss. 10 and 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 12.9.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4736 of 2017, titled as Ravinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & 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 order dated 11.7.2017 passed by it in OA No. 6392 of 2017, Shiv Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, directed the respondents to extend the benefit of aforesaid order to the petitioner, if on verification, he is found to be similarly situate, and send him for training as Veterinary Pharmacist in the next batch.

2.

Reply filed by respondent No.2 reveals that in pursuance to the directions passed by the Tribunal, the case of the applicant has been decided and he has been sent for two year Veterinary Pharmacist Training course at Shri Dhanwantri Himalayan Education Society, vide letter dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure R-1). In view of above, order alleged to have been violated 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.