Disposed

Tikkam Ram v. Yusus Khan

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Apr 2024COPC/265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged non-compliance with a prior judgment regarding pay fixation based on military service. The Court, relying on R.K. Barwal, held that approved military service from age 21 was correctly considered. The petition was disposed of as there was no willful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; notice to respondent discharged. Liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings for surviving grievances.

Tikkam Ram Vs Yusus Khan — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 265 of 2022 Decided on : 5.4.2024

Tikkam Ram

…Petitioner

Versus

Yunus Khan

…Respondent

________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocates General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. Sandeep Sharma Judge (Oral)

¶11

By way of instant contempt petition, payer

¶12

has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment dated 25.11.2021, passed by this Court in CWP No.5178 of 2021, titled as Tikkam Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors, whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of aforesaid petition ordered that direction contained in judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.231 of 2019, titled as Amar

¶13

¶14

Nath and others vs. State of H.P., decided on 15.7.2020 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also.

¶15

Though, in terms of aforesaid direction issued by this Court, petitioner became entitled to the benefits/relief granted by this Court in Amar Nath supra but since aforesaid direction has not been complied with, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant proceedings.

¶16

Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings respondent has filed reply. Apart from reply, learned Additional Advocate General also placed on record instructions dated 10.8.2023, issued under the signatures of Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh. Perusal of reply as well as aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that pay of the petitioner has been fixed in terms of mandate contained in judgment alleged to have been violated.

¶17

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner states that though his approved military service was 15 years 3 months and 25 days but, while doing pay fixation in terms of mandate contained in judgment alleged to have been violated, military service of only 13 years 11 months and 22 days has been taken into consideration and as such it cannot be said that the

¶18

mandate contained in judgment has been complied with.

¶19

¶20

Learned Additional Advocate Generals while making

¶21

this Court peruse the judgment passed in Amar Nath (supra) case submitted that direction was issued to fix the pay of the petitioner on the basis of approved military service, which has been correctly taken as 13 years 11 months and 22 days as the military service, if any, rendered in Army prior to petitioner's having attained age of 21 years could not be taken into consideration, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.K.

¶22

Barwal & others vs. The State of H.P. and others .

¶23

Having perused the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.K. Barwal and others versus The State of H.P. and others, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Advocate General. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of relevant para of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:

¶24

“31: The grant of benefit of military service even in respect of those who join the armed forces during the emergency, is to be given only from the date when they attained the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rules for the post to which such persons are appointed”.

¶25

Since while passing judgment alleged to have been

¶26

violated, direction was to fix pay of the petitioner, taking note of approved military service rendered by the petitioner prior to his

¶27

¶28

joining civil employment and pay fixation has been done by taking into consideration approved military service, may be of 13 years 11 months and 22 days, action of the respondent can not be said to be contumacious. Otherwise also, court while passing direction alleged to have been violated, specifically directed respondents to consider approved military service, which as per respondent is of 13 years 11 months and 22 days, pay of the petitioner has been fixed by the respondents, taking into consideration approved military service, which as per respondents is 13 years 11 months.

¶29

No doubt, copy of office order, whereby the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violation stands complied with, if perused, suggests that though military service of the petitioner is of 15 years 3 months and 29 days but, as has been held in R.K. Barwal supra, approved military service if any, for pay fixation shall only be considered from the date such person became eligible for civil employment.

¶30

In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Class-I Officer, for which minimum age is 21 years. 10. Leaving everything aside, this Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, is otherwise need not to go into the correctness of order passed in compliance of judgment alleged

¶31

¶32

to have been violated, rather correctness thereof can only be tested in the substantive petition, if any, filed by the petitioner.

¶33

For the reasons, recorded herein above, this Court is convinced and satisfied that mandate contained in judgment stands complied with and, as such, present contempt petition is disposed of. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law qua surviving grievances if any.

¶34

(Sandeep Sharma ) Judge

¶35

April 05, 2024 (veena)

Tikkam Ram v. Yusus Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikkam Ram v. Yusus Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Singh Vs Stat of Hp and Others

Surinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Shree Karishna Packaging Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Surjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Dev Raj Vs Yusus Khan

Rajesh Kumar Vs Hp State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others