_______________________________________________________________________ vs J.C.Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 290 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                                          CMP-T No.1943 of 2020 in
                                                                            COPCT No.1126 of 2020




                                                                                      .
                                                Date of Decision: 6.01.2021





    _______________________________________________________________________
    Davinder Chauhan                                           Petitioner
                            Versus





    J.C.Sharma, Principal Secretary (PWD) & Ors.          .....Respondents
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1





    For the Petitioner                     : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, through
                                            video-conferencing

    For the Respondents                    : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate
                              r             General, hrough video-conferencing.
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present Contempt Petition, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt

proceedings against the respondents for having intentionally and

deliberately disobeyed the order dated 18.12.2017, passed by the

erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No.2708

of 2015, titled as Davinder Chauhan versus State of Himachal Pradesh

and others, which has been further upheld by this Court vide

judgment dated 29.5.2019 passed in CWP No.901 of 2019. Vide

aforesaid order, learned tribunal below while quashing corrigendum

dated 1.2.2012, directed the respondents to regularize the services of

the petitioner as complaint Attendant/ Receptionist with effect from

01.01.2002 with all consequential benefits within three months.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Though, respondents being aggrieved with the aforesaid

order passed by tribunal, filed CWP No.901/2019 before this Court,

but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 29.5.2019, as a

.

consequence of which, order alleged to have been violated passed by

the tribunal below came to be upheld. Since, no steps whatsoever

ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for

implementation of order dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned Tribunal

below and further upheld by this Court vide judgment dated

29.5.2019 passed in CWP No. 901 of 2019, petitioner was compelled

to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Respondents after issuance of court notices filed

compliance affidavit enclosing therewith copy of office order dated

22.12.2020, whereby competent authority in compliance of order

alleged to have been violated, regularized the services of the

petitioner as Receptionist (Class-III) upon completion of eight years

continuous service on notional basis subject to outcome of SLP

intended to be filed by the respondents. However, subsequently,

respondents realizing their mistake issued corrigendum dated

1.1.2021, whereby order dated 22.12.2020 was modified to the

extent that petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits

upon regularization as ordered by learned Tribunal as well as this

Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2017, subject to outcome of SLP.

4. Having perused the corrigendum dated 1.1.2021, which is

taken on record, this Court finds that order alleged to have been

violated stands duly complied with and as such, nothing remains to

be adjudicated in the present proceedings and accordingly same are

closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. This

Court hopes and trust that all consequential benefits in terms of

.

aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal below would be released

expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks.

The present petition stands disposed of in the foresaid

terms.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 06,2021 (shankar)