In an oral decision, the court disposed of a contempt petition by holding that it was rendered infructuous after the respondent agreed to issue a revised Pension Payment Order.
Contempt petition disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 29.11.2010
COCP No.1974 of 2010
Sumanjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Pardeep Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present : Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Mr. Joshi has filed reply on behalf of the respondents in the Court today. The same is taken on record. A perusal of the reply shows that the petitioner has been granted disability pension @ 40% for two years w.e.f. 12.10.1982. Mr. Joshi states that the revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) shall be issued within a period of one month and necessary payments consequent to the aforesaid order shall be made within a period of one month of the issuance of the revised PPO.
In view of the said fact, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. The same is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
29.11.2010 Vimal
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
Sumanjit Singh
Pardeep Kumar and others
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
