High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Sharma vs Ram Dass Dhiman

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 20 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 SHI CK 0262

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC No. 110 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

18 paragraphs · 344 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent

for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed judgment dated 2.12.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2327 of 2019, titled

as Sanjay Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

2.

Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, alleged to have been violated, (Annexure PA), reveals that Division Bench of this Court having taken note

of the statement made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that his client shall be content if a direction is issued to the respondents to

constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the petitioner for induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services, disposed of

the petition with a direction to the respondents to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee to examine claim of the petitioner qua his induction

into the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services within two months. Since no action, whatsoever came to be taken by the respondent in

pursuance to aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent states that though he has every

reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be

complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

4.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition

alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent to do the needful within a period of two weeks, if not already

done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment

is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against erring official. Notices issued to the respondent is hereby

discharged accordingly.