Ramesh Chand vs Sandeep Kumar And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2972 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                            COPC No. 187 of 2021
                                       Decided on: June 28, 2021




                                                                                .
    _______________________________________________________________





    Ramesh Chand                                  ...........Petitioner
                                   Versus
    Sandeep Kumar and another                       ....Respondents
    _______________________________________________________________





    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.





    For the Respondents       :   Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.
                  THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING
    _______________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present petition filed under S. 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf

of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the

respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of judgment

dated 17.12.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5786 of

2020, titled Ramesh Chand vs. H.R.T.C. & others, whereby

petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

pay to the petitioner, entire retiral dues alongwith statutory

interest on the entire amount on or before 30.4.2021. Since

respondents have failed to pay the admissible dues to the

petitioner till date, he has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings, praying for initiation of contempt proceedings

against the respondents.

2. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the

respondents, fairly states that though he has every reason to

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

believe that by now judgment in question must have been

complied with, but if not, same would be complied within a

.

period of four weeks from today.

3. Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned

counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep

the present proceedings alive and same are closed with a

direction to the respondents to do the needful, if not already

done, in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated, within

a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner

shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case

the respondents fail to comply with the judgment in question,

so that appropriate action is taken against the erring official.

Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 28, 2021 (vikrant)