High CourtsSingle Bench

Sushil Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 17 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 SHI CK 0174

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Original Petition Contempt No. 225 Of 2021
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

15 paragraphs · 275 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, delivered the following:-

By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged willful disobedience to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 4279 of

2020, titled as Sushil Kumar versus H.R.T.C., dated 12.11.2020, which writ petition stood disposed of by this Court in the following terms:-

“ Ms. Shubh Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on instructions meted to her, by the latter, submits that the

lis-controversia, borne in the extant writ petition, is, completely covered by the verdict, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Civil

Appeals No. 1557-1564 of 2019, titled as , “Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc.â€. She further submits, before

this Court, that she has further instructions, to make submission, before this Court, that the respondent-Corporation be directed to, in

consonance with the afore verdict, consider the writ claims, of, the writ petition. Prayer accepted.

2.

Consequently, the extant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- Corporation, to consider the writ claim(s), in

consonance with the verdict (supra), rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No

costs.â€​

2.

Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance to the directions of the Court, the case of the petitioner was

considered and his services have been regularized from the initial date of joining. This is not refuted by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, as prayed for, these contempt proceedings are ordered to be dropped. Notice discharged.