Date Of Decision: 19.11.2024 vs Sudha Devi & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 17646 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 19.11.2024 vs Sudha Devi & Anr on 19 November, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                              2024:HHC:11719




IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               COPC No.689 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Bimla Devi                                              .........Petitioner
                                       Versus
Sudha Devi & Anr.                                       .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:  Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
                     Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
                     Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-
                     State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings

against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally

disobeyed of directions contained in the order/judgment dated

01.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No.11160

of 2024, titled as Bimla Devi Vs. State of HP & Ors.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment alleged to have been

violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the undertaking

given on behalf of the respondents to continue the petitioner in service

till she attains the age of 60 years, disposed of the aforesaid petition

with a direction to do the needful. Since, despite there being specific

direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondent

2024:HHC:11719

failed to decide the case of the petitioner, he has approached this

Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though

he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid

judgment/order alleged to have been violated, must have been

complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be complied with

within a period of two weeks from today.

4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned

learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to

keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly

disposed of with the direction to do the needful in terms of judgment,

alleged to have been violated positively within a period of two weeks, if

not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the

present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance

with law, is taken against erring officials. Notice issued to the

respondents are discharged.

November 19, 2024                                (Sandeep Sharma),
      (Sunil)                                          Judge