Una vs Sh. Sandeep Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 904 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                            BEFORE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
    CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT No.40 of 2022




                                                              .
    Between:-





    SURESH CHAND, SON OF SHRI
    BHAGAT    RAM, RESIDENT   OF
    VILLAGE   AND  POST   OFFICE
    DEHLAN, TEHSIL UNA, DISTRICT





    UNA, H.P.
                                                    ......PETITIONER
    (BY MR. SANJEEV KUMAR SURI,
    ADVOCATE)





    AND

    SH. SANDEEP KUMAR, MANAGING
    DIRECTOR,   HIMACHAL    ROAD
    TRANPORT        CORPORATION,

    HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                    ......RESPONDENT
    (BY MR. AJEET SINGH SAKLANI,
    ADVOCATE)
    Whether approved for reporting?



                 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
    passed the following:
                                  ORDER

By way of contempt petition, prayer has been made on

behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against

respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the

directions contained in judgment dated 08.07.2021, passed by this

Court in CWP No 3326 of 2021, titled Suresh Chand v. State of

Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby this Court directed the

respondents to release all the pensionary and retiral benefits to the

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

aforesaid order/judgment Since no action, whatsoever, came to be

taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction

issued by this Court, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings.

2. Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, learned counsel representing the

.

respondent, 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 definitely

complied with within two weeks.

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,

respondent-contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of

judgment alleged to have been violated within two weeks, failing which,

respondent 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 against the respondent-contemnor.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge

11th March, 2022

(reena)