Dismissed

Lakshmi Devi v. Anil Khachi

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2023COPCT/867/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court noted the release of implementing orders by the Government regarding regularization and benefits for a deceased workman. The court disposed of the petition mandating implementation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; mandate to respondents to regularize services and release consequential benefits within four weeks.

Lakshmi Devi Vs Anil Khachi — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC(T) No. 867 of 2020 Decided on: 07.11.2023

¶2

Lakshmi Devi ……..Petitioner Versus Anil Khachi & Ors …….Respondents Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING? Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General for respondents

¶3

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

¶4

The instant Contempt Petition arises alleging willful and deliberate non implementation of the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6072 of 2016, titled as Laxmi Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 27.02.2018. The operative part of the order/judgment is reads as under:-

¶5

“8. The policy document of 1999 was not the original policy document and was in continuation of the original policy. The daily wagers were entitled to benefit of the policy extended from time to time. Deceased husband of the applicant was clearly entitled for regularization on

¶6

¶7

completion of 8 years services in terms of the policy.

¶8

Consequently, the original application is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of deceased husband of the applicant on completion of 8 years continuous service as on 31.3.1999 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. with benefits of family pension to the applicant in accordance with law and the actual monetary benefits will be restricted to three years prior to filing of the original application. The benefits shall be granted within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”

¶9

The respondents have filed the reply, stating therein that non implementation was neither willful nor deliberate and unconditional apology was also tendered.

¶10

The matter was listed before this Court on

¶11

11.10.2023 when, this Court had passed the following

¶12

orders:-

¶13

“Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that on account of dismissal of Civil Writ Petition filed by the respondent State, laying therein challenge to order passed by Himachal Pradesh

¶14

¶15

Administrative Tribunal, some more amount is required to be paid to the petitioner, as such, matter may be adjourned for some time.

¶16

In view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, matter is adjourned, enabling respondents to ensure that the balance amount, if any, in terms of order alleged to have been violated, is paid on or before next date of hearing, failing which respondents shall remain present in the court to explain why they be not punished for having willfully and deliberately violated the mandate contained in the order alleged to have been violated.

¶17

List on 7.11.2023.”

¶18

4. Today Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

¶19

Advocate General has furnished instructions, as received from the Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Division Rohru, District Shimla, dated 7.11.2023 enclosing the copy of speaking orders dated 7.11.2023 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla-2, the operative part of the Office

¶20

Order/Communication dated 7.11.2023 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD Shimla reads as under:-

¶21

“And whereas, the Hon’ble Court has issued the direction to implement the judgment,

¶22

¶23

therefore, in order to comply with the direction, the case of the petitioner is considered for regularization on completion of 8 years of service in accordance with the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court subject to legal remedies available to the Govt. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer is being appointing authority is directed to regularize the services of the deceased workmen on completion of 8 years by issuing the necessary orders within two days extend consequential benefits immediately thereafter in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble High Court.

¶24

May inform the parties accordingly.”

¶25

In the background of the instructions dated 7.11.2023, so placed on record alongwith the

¶26

communication dated 7.11.2023 passed by Engineer-inChief, HPPWD, as referred to above, stating therein that the Executive Engineer has been directed to regularize the services of the deceased workmen on completion of eight years by issuing the necessary orders within two days and to extend consequential benefits immediately thereafter in terms of the Order of Hon’ble Court.

¶27

The act of the respondents in implementing the judgment is appreciable. In terms of the above, this Court

¶28

¶29

closes instant Contempt Petition, with the mandate to the respondents to confer the benefit of regularization and to release the consequential benefits, with all admissible benefits, within four weeks positively. In case the judgment and the undertaking furnished to this Court by the Engineer-in-Chief HPPWD which is to be followed by the Executive Engineer concerned is not implemented within the above period then, the petitioner may make an application for revival of the instant proceedings.

¶30

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶31

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶32

November 7, 2023 (himani)

Lakshmi Devi v. Anil Khachi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Devi v. Anil Khachi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Suresh Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Meli Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Susheel Kumar Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others