Disposed

Usha Devi v. Rp Verma

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Sept 2020COPCT/789/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for contempt against the respondent for violating a judgment of the HP State Administrative Tribunal granting relief similar to a coordinate Bench order. The court closed the petition upon an undertaking that compliance would be effected within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; respondent directed to comply with impugned order within three weeks; liberty to revive proceeds.

Usha Devi Vs Rp Verma — Himachal Pradesh HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

		COPCT No.789 of 2020 Decided on 7.9.2020
_____________________ Smt. Usha Devi	____________________ Versus	_________________________ Petitioner
Sh. R.P. Verma _____________________	____________________	Respondent _________________________

¶3

Coram:

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner	:	Ms. Babita, Adv Conferencing.	ocate, through Video
For the respondents	:	Mr. Ashok Sharm with Mr. Sudhir	a, Advocate General Bhatnagar and Mr.
______________________	______	Arvind Sharma, General. ___________________	Additional Advocates ___________________

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgment dated 28.3.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1270 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.7.2009, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, Sh. Man Singh v. The State

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

of HP and ors a/w connected matters, had directed the respondents

¶12

to consider the case of the applicants strictly in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and grant similar benefit if she is found similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶13

2. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though e 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 a period of three weeks from today.

¶14

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 order/judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three 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

¶15

¶16

respondent-contemnor. Notice issued to respondent is discharged at

¶17

this stage.

¶18

7^th September, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge

Usha Devi v. Rp Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi v. Rp Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Husain Vs State of Hp

Jyoti Prakash Vs State of Hp

Bheem Ram Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jawahar Lal Vs State of Hp

Vijay Kumar Chandel Vs D.C. Rana

Satya Parkash Vs State of Hp and Others