Decided On 15.3.202 vs Sandeep Kumar And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2066 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                                          .
                                                     COPC No.68 of 2021





                                                   Decided on 15.3.2021
      __________________________________________________________________
    Prem Chand Sharma                                         Petitioner
                                    Versus





    Sandeep Kumar and Anr.                                  Respondents
      __________________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the petitioner                     :      Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate.
    For the respondents       :   Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate.
    __________________________________________________________________

    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 willfully and

intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated

10.8.2020, passed by the Division Bench this Court in CWP No. 2761 of

2020, whereby the Division Bench having taken note of the statement

made by the learned counsel for the parties that case of the petitioner

is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed by this

Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and Ors.,

disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents/competent

authority to release all the pensionery and retiral benefits to the

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

petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production

.

of certified copy of the order. The Division Bench of this Court also

ordered that in case the pensionery and retiral benefits are not

extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid time, then in addition to

the pensionery and retiral benefits, the petitioner would be entitled to

interest @9% p.a. from the due date. Since no action, whatsoever,

came to be taken at the behest of the respondents, petitioner has

approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel, while

accepting the notice on behalf of the respondents, submits that

though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment

alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its

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

period of three weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the

learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep

the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However,

respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of

judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three

weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and

petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that

appropriate action in accordance with law is taken. Notices issued to

.

respondents are discharged at this stage.

    15th March, 2021                             (Sandeep Sharma),
     manjit                                           Judge




                          r        to