Smt. Veena Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3572 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                      .

                ON THE 19th DAY OF MAY, 2022.

                          BEFORE





         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

                CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT
                    (TRIBUNAL) No.1012 of 2020.





    BETWEEN:-

    SMT. VEENA DEVI W/O SHRI NEK RAM, R/O KUNDANI, POST
    OFFICE BASSI, TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

                                                        .....PETITIONER.

    (BY SH. BIMAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

         AND



    1.    SHRI TARUN KAPOOR, I.A.S., ADDITIONAL CHIEF
          SECRETARY  (URBAN   DEVELOPMENT)    TO    THE
          GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002




          (H.P.)

    2.    SMT.   SHALINI,   SECRETARY,   NAGAR    PANCHAYAT





          (TEHSILDAR), JOGINDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

    3.    SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SECRETARY, NAGAR PANCHAYAT





          (TEHSILDAR) JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

                                                    ......CONTEMONRS

         (BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G. WITH MR.
         VINOD THAKUR, ADDL. A.G. AND MR. RAJAT CHAUHAN,
         LAW OFFICER FOR R-1,
         MR. LOKINDER KUTLEHRIA, ADOVCATE FOR R-2 & 3).




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:06:15 :::CIS
                                    2




               This contempt petition coming on for admission

    after notice this day, the Court passed the following:




                                                            .

                           ORDER

On 5.5.2022, this Court passed the following

order:-

"The instant petition has been filed on account of

non-compliance of the order dated 7.3.2017, passed in O.A. (M) No. 41/2015, which reads as under:-

"Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to consider the applicant case in the light of

judgment passed in MOOL RAJ UPADHAYAY VS.

STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding

the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment shall also be

extended to her along with consequential benefits, if any, as per law, without any

discrimination, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this

order alongwith copy of the aforementioned judgment before the said authority by the applicant."

2. Even if respondents No.1 and 2 have filed detailed reply, but the copy of consideration order has not been filed alongwith said reply. In such circumstances, let consideration order be filed within two weeks."

2. Today, respondent No.3 has placed before the

Court consideration order dated 29.1.2019.

.

3. Now that the respondents have complied with

the directions passed by erstwhile Tribunal (supra),

therefore, they cannot be said to have willfully and

deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the Court.

4. Accordingly, notice issued on 15.3.2018 is

discharged and the instant petition is closed reserving

liberty to the petitioner to assail the consideration order in

accordance with law.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 19th May, 2022.

(Pankaj/Chander)