Sanjeev Kumar vs P.C. Dhiman And Another

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition filed under S. 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 8.9.2015 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2904 of 2015.

Careful perusal of the order dated 8.9.2015 (Annexure C-1) reveals that erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 5.3.2015 rendered in CWP No. 3589 of 2012, Lokesh Chandel vs. Himachal Pradesh University, dated 10.9.2014 in CWP No. 1246 of 2013, titeld Gopal Dass and others. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, dated 26.6.2014 in CWP No. 8664 of 2014, titled Rajiv Bhushan vs. State of H.P. and others, dated 25.7.2014 in CWP No. 4984 of 2014, Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, passed by this Court and finally order dated 28.72.015 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2537 of 2015, titled Rajeev Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, directed the respondents to grant benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, in case, on verification, he is found to be similarly situate person, within three months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondents pursuant to aforesaid order dated 8.9.2015, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings.

Learned Additional Advocate General states that though he has every reason to believe that by now judgment/order dated 8.9.2015 must have been complied with by the respondents, but if not, same would be complied within a period of four weeks from today.

Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and same are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order dated 8.9.2015, within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondent fails to comply with the order in question. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.