Braj Bhushan Gautam and Another Vs Sandeep Kadam and Another

Braj Bhushan Gautam & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kadam Secretary & Anr.

COPC No. 570/2024

14.07.2026 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sprash Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioners/applicants.

¶4

Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents.

¶5

CMP No. 17127/2026

¶6

Petitioners/applicants seeks revival of the contempt petition, which was disposed of on 24.12.2024.

¶7

Braj Bhushan Gautam & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. (CWP No. 1794/2024) instituted by the petitioner/applicant was disposed of on 11.03.2024 with following operative directions:

¶8

¶9

“3. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case the claim of the petitioners is found to be covered by the said judgment, then same and similar benefits, as granted in Dev Raj’s case (supra) be also granted in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.”

¶10

It is an admitted position that pursuant to the above directions, the respondents issued consideration order on 13.02.2025, deciding petitioners’ case with following operative directions: -

¶11

“Whereas, the entire facts of the case have been considered and it is revealed that the Hon'ble High Court in

¶12

CWP No. 7724/2021 ruled that the diplomas from State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine prior to 2003 will be deemed as valid. Accordingly in compliance to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 1794/2024, the educational qualifications and documents as enclosed with the petitioner by the petitioners were scrutinised and compared with the educational certificates of Sh. Dev Raj. Upon scrutiny, the documents (marksheets) were found to be issued by Rajkiya Ayurvedic evam Unani Chikitsa Adhikaya, (Bihar) in both the cases. Accordingly, in light of the directions of Hon'ble High Court in CWP no. 7724/2021 and 1794/2024, it is ordered that the diploma obtained by the petitioner from the Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic & Unani System are held to be valid for the purpose of educational qualification as per R&P Rules for the purpose of appointment to the post of APO, subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions as directed by Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner may apply for the post of APO and also produce a copy of this consideration order during the application process for the post of APO, as and when advertised by the Department, since the matter for permission for advertisement of vacancies is already under consideration with the Government. The representation is therefore decided accordingly.”

¶13

Taking note of above consideration order, the

¶14

contempt petition bearing COPC No. 570/2024 instituted by the petitioners/applicants was disposed of as under: -

¶15

“Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that needful will be done, within a period of three weeks from today. His statement is taken on record.

¶17

3. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let orders, in terms of the judgment passed by the Court, be definitely passed within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application for revival of the

¶18

execution petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶19

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the respondents are still in contempt of the directions issued in Sudarshan Sharma v. State of H.P. & Anr. as on 08.10.2025 (Annexure X-2), the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer was created to comply with the aforesaid decision, yet, the petitioner has still not been appointed to the said post.

¶20

The respondents cannot be said to be in contempt of the judgment in question. No specific directions were issued in the judgment to the respondents to appoint the petitioners. Petitioners’ grievance is based upon office letter dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure X-2), which gives rise to an independent cause of action to the petitioners. The contempt petition instituted by the petitioners was disposed of on 24.12.2024, reserving liberty to file an application for revival of the execution petition. It is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of the grievances urged in this application.

¶21

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of his grievances.

¶22

14^th July, 2026 (Rohit)

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Braj Bhushan Gautam and Another v. Sandeep Kadam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Bhushan Gautam and Another v. Sandeep Kadam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Asif Chaudhary Vs the State of Hp

Rekha Devi Vs Hrtc and Another

Virender Kishore Vs the Hrtc and Another

Payal D/O Shri Subash Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Hpau Vs the Cskhpkv and Another

Pushap Raj and Another Vs Hp University and Others