CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Roshan Lal vs Arun Kumar Sharma And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 4 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 SHI CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 454 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

6 paragraphs · 334 words

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

1.

On previous date, i.e. 2.9.2020, learned Deputy Advocate General had placed on record instructions dated 31.8.2020, whereby it has been informed that order dated 9.5.2017 passed by erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1898 of 2017, titled as Roshan Lal and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, stands complied with and the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected on 26.11.2018 on the ground that petitioners in CWP No. 8953 of 2013 and connected matters, titled Joga Singh and others Vs. State of H.P. were appointed as Vidya Upasak, whereas petitioner herein was appointed as contract teacher against post of JBT, therefore, the petitioner is not identical to the petitioners in Joga Singh's case.

2.

Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was bonafide pursuing his case by filing this Contempt Petition and in view of rejection order dated 9.5.2017, he intends to file appropriate comprehensive petition for redressal of his grievance.

3.

So far as present petition is concerned, direction in the order passed by erstwhile Tribunal, was that benefits of judgment passed in CWP No. 8953 of 2013 be extended to the petitioner, subject to verification and on finding of the petitioner to be similarly situated and now, rightly or wrongly, claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the concerned authority. Therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated in present petition.

4.

Undoubtedly, there is a delay in deciding the issue in compliance of Court order, for which unconditional, unqualified and sincere apology has been tendered in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

5.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and accepting the apology tendered on behalf of respondents, present petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law and in such eventuality, for the period spent in pursuing the present petition, delay and laches will not come in his way.