Som Pal vs Anjum Ara

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant contempt petition filed under S.17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed order dated 27.4.2016 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1642 of 2016, titled Sanjay Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby learned Tribunal below, having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgments rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8964 of 2008, titled Prem Raj and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and dated 19.10.2012, rendered in CWP No. 4369 of 2012, titled Mani Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments and grant similar benefits to him, in case the petitioner is found to be similarly situate, within three months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Perusal of the reply filed by the respondents reveals that the respondents have filed a Civil Writ Petition before this Court against the decision of erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which is pending adjudication. It is further stated in the reply that the services of the petitioner are being regularized vide PHQ order No. P-III(3)(5) CWP No. 7909/2013-6311-37, dated 9.3.2017 (Annexure R-1).

Since the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with by the respondents, this court finds no action of the respondents to be contumacious in nature, and as such, sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive, which are accordingly closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in competent Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.