Om Prakash vs Sandeep Kumar And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1916 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                             COPC No. 53 of 2021
                                       Decided on: March 9, 2021




                                                                                .
    _______________________________________________________________





    Om Prakash                                    ...........Petitioner
                                   Versus
    Sandeep Kumar and another                       ....Respondents
    _______________________________________________________________





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

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr.     Sudhanshu                     Jamwal,





                                                  Advocate.

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

By way of present petition filed under Ss. 2 and 12 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 25.8.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3132 of 2020

titled Om Prakash vs. HRTC and another, whereby petition was

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release 50% of

the due and admissible retiral benefits together with statutory

interest, within fifteen days and after that within two months, to

release remaining due and eligible retiral benefits together with

statutory interest. Since the respondents have failed to comply

with the aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this

Court by way of instant petition, praying therein for initiation of

contempt proceedings against the respondents.

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

2. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents,

fairly states that though he has every reason to believe that by

.

now judgment in question must have been complied with, but if

not, same would be complied within a period of two 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 two weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner

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

case, respondents fail to comply with the judgment in

question, so that appropriate action is taken against the

erring official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

March 9, 2021 (vikrant)