Uma Dutt vs Ved Prakash Sharma

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition filed under S.17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 2.5.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1640 of 2017, titled Uma Dutt vs. Director of Agriculture and another, whereby learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment dated 28.12.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 8534 of 2010, Sarwan Kumar vs. State of H.P. and ors., followed by judgment dated 26.3.2015 in CWP No. 1348 of 2013, Saran Dass vs. State of H.P. and others, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents/competent Authority to extend benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, if on verification he is found to be similarly situate person, within three months, from the date of production of a certified copy of order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondent in pursuance to order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondent, in accordance with law.

Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that though he has every reason to believe that by now judgment/order dated 2.5.2017 must have been complied with by the respondent, but if not, same would be complied within a period of two 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 closed with a direction to the respondent to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order dated 2.5.2017, within a period of two 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, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.