Disposed

Jeet Singh v. Kumud Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2020COPCT/364/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This instant petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and Section 17(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act was filed to initiate contempt proceedings for the alleged disobedience of a Tribunal order regarding work charge status. The Court observed that the respondent had considered the petitioner's case and passed an order conferring work charge status on 14.5.2018. Consequently, t

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the respondent is discharged; present proceedings are closed; liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings for surviving grievances.

Jeet Singh Vs Kumud Singh — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

COPC(T) No. 364 of 2020 Decided on: July 1, 2020

¶3

____________ ___________________________________________________ Jeet Singh ………..Petitioner Versus Kumud Singh ….Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram:

¶4

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

¶5

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Advo conf	Leela cate, erencing.	Nand through	Sharma, video-
For the Respondent	: Ms. thro	Ruma ugh vide	Kaushik, o-conferen	Advocate, cing.
_________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge	_________ (oral):	_________	__________	__________

¶6

By way of present petition filed under S. 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 17.5.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1807 of 2017, titled Jeet Singh vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others , whereby learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents/competent Authority to extend benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, if on verification he is found to be similarly situate person, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondent in pursuance to order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondent, in accordance with law.

¶10

2. Perusal of Annexure RA, annexed with the reply filed by the respondent, shows that the case of the petitioner stands duly considered by the respondent vide order dated 14.5.2018, whereby it has been observed that the case of the petitioner has been considered for conferment of work charge status with effect from 24.1.1998 after revival of work charge establishment in the Board. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the order in question stands duly complied with and no

¶11

¶12

fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present proceedings alive.

¶13

3. In view of aforesaid, present proceedings are closed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, qua his surviving grievances, if any.

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶15

July 1, 2020 (vikrant)

Jeet Singh v. Kumud Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet Singh v. Kumud Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parshottam Lal Goyal Vs State of Hp

Manic Goyal Vs State of Hp

Konic Goyal Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Chand Vs The Commissioner

Joginder Kumar Vs Anil Kumar Khachi

Manoj Kumar Vs Anil Kumar Khachi