The High Court disposed of a contempt petition regarding employment under a Rehabilitation Scheme. The court declined to adjudicate the disputed parentage controversy and found the petitioner had rendered the prior order infructuous.
Contempt petition stands disposed of as having 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.
COCP 2081 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP 2081 of 2013 Date of decision:-13.11.2013
Anchal Singh
Petitioner
vs.
KBS Sidhu IAS and ors
Respondent
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate Mr. HP Verma, Addl.A.G. Punjab
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The claim of the petitioner for employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme of 18.11.1993 was required to be considered as per the directions of this court dated 25.8.2011. After considering the claim of the petitioner, employment was declined to him on the ground that Onkar Singh son of Hans Raj i.e. his brother has already been given employment.
Counsel for the petitioner on 30.8.2013 had denied that Onkar Singh was his brother. In the interest of justice, a direction was given to the respondents to re-verify the parentage of petitioner Anchal Singh and Onkar Singh, the alleged brother, by confirming whether Hans Raj father of the petitioner and Hans Raj father of Onkar Singh was the same person by confirming the parentage of both the persons. An affidavit has been filed today re-affirming the fact that the petitioner and Onkar Singh are real brothers sons of Hans Raj S/O Phagan.
Counsel for the petitioner still disputes the above said fact. I am afraid that in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, it will not be appropriate
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.11.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP 2081 of 2013
2
to enter into the controversy of the parentage of Onkar Singh to determine whether he is brother of the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the competent authorities by availing any other legal remedy. So far as the compliance of the order dated 25.8.2011 is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the same stands complied with, warranting no further action in the contempt proceedings. Without prejudice to the other legal rights of the petitioner, the contempt petition stands disposed of as having rendered infructuous.
November 13 ,2013 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.11.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can enter into a controversy regarding the parentage of two persons to determine brotherhood.
Whether the compliance of a prior order dated 25.8.2011 has been adequately rendered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anchal Singh
KBS Sidhu
M.M. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
