Findu Ram vs Sanjeev Kaul And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5525 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                             COPC No. 49 of 2023
                                        Decided on: May 10, 2023
    _______________________________________________________________




                                                                                .
    Findu Ram                                     ...........Petitioner





                                   Versus
    Sanjeev Kaul and others                         ....Respondents
    _______________________________________________________________





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

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.





    For the Respondents                    :
                                  Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate
                                  General with Mr. Rajan Kahol,
                                  Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
                                  Verma,    Additional    Advocates
                                  General with Mr. Rahul Thakur

                                  and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy

                                  Advocates General.
    _______________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Ss. 10 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act read with Art. 215 of the Constitution of India,

prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of

contempt proceedings against the respondents, for willful disobedience

of mandate contained in judgment dated 13.1.2023 passed by Division

Bench of this Court in CWP No. 337 of 2023, wherein petition was

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of

the petitioner in light of judgment dated 23.6.2021 in CWP No. 3047 of

2020, Jagdish Kumar and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh &

others, which was upheld by Division Bench of this Court in LPA NO.

104 of 2021 titled State of H.P. and others v. Jagdish Kumar and

others and connected matters, decided on 23.2.2022.

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

2. Since the respondents failed to take steps for implementing the

judgment dated 13.1.2023, petitioner has approached this Court by

.

way of instant petition, praying therein to initiate contempt proceedings

against the respondents.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

respondents has filed compliance affidavit, perusal whereof reveals

that the mandate contained in judgment dated 13.1.2023 has been

complied with and after considering the case of the petitioner, in light of

judgment supra, benefit of induction as Pump Attendant on contract

basis as on 16.10.2019 has been granted to the petitioner on notional

basis and he has been regularized with effect from 1.4.2022, i.e. the

date when juniors of the petitioner were regularized.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner, after having perused

the aforesaid compliance affidavit fairly admits factum with regard to

induction in service as well as regularization, but he states that since

actual financial benefits have not been released, judgment in question

cannot be said to have been complied with, in its letter and spirit.

5. However, having carefully perused the mandate contained in the

judgment alleged to have been violated, this court finds merit in the

submission of Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General

that there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner in

light of judgment supra, as such, no action of the respondents can be

said to be contumacious.

6. Since in the contempt petition, this court is only required to

ensure compliance of the directions issued by it, it cannot go into the

correctness and legality of the order, if any, passed by the respondents

in purported compliance of the direction issued by this Court,

.

legality/correctness whereof can be laid challenge in separate

proceedings.

7. In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the

present proceedings, which are closed and notices issued to the

respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to lay

challenge to the order of consideration passed by the respondents in

purported compliance of the judgment in question, by way of

appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if required and

desired.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 10, 2023 (vikrant)