Dismissed

Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. M.P. Rai, IFS Md, Pb. Forest Development Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013COCP/2989/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-compliance of an order directing regularization of services, the High Court accepted the respondent's reply stating the initial order was complied with via a subsequent rejection of claims, accepted an apology, dismissed proceedings, and advised aggrieved parties to seek appropriate legal remedy.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings are dropped; the apology is accepted; the petition is disposed of.

Gurnam Singh and Anr. Vs M.P. Rai, IFS Md… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP No. 2989 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP No. 2989 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 11.03.2013

¶6

Gurnam Singh and another

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

M.P. Rai .. Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Shot reply by way of affidavit of M.P. Rai, I.F.S. Managing Director, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Forest Complex, Sector 68, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali dated 11.03.2013 filed in court, is taken on record.

¶15

The present contempt petition has been filed with a grievance that the order passed by this court on 11.05.2012 in CWP No. 8910 of 2012, whereby respondent No.2 therein was directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of Government Instructions dated 23.01.2001 and/or other policy on the same subject by passing an appropriate order, has not been complied with.

¶16

As is evident from the pleadings in the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners was that their services had not been regularized though they were working on vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification.

¶17

Along with reply, an order dated 04.10.2012 has been annexed. It has been stated that in terms of the directions issued by this court on 11.05.2012, the points raised by the the petitioners are not acceptable as they do not fulfill the necessary condition of regularization as per the Government policy, therefore, their claim for regularization was rejected

¶18

COCP No. 2989 of 2012

¶19

¶20

The order passed by this court has been complied with. For the delay in compliance to the order, unconditional apology has been tendered. The same is accepted. The proceedings initiated against the respondent are dropped. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 04.10.2012, they may avail of their appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶21

Disposed of.

¶22

11.3.2013 sarita

¶23

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. M.P. Rai, IFS Md, Pb. Forest Development Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. M.P. Rai, IFS Md, Pb. Forest Development Punjab

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

Shobha Rani Vs Board of Governers etc.

Hem Lata Vs Board of Governors, Ch. Matu Ram Arya Govt.

Avtar Singh Basra Vs P.S. Aujla and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs Kamal Kumar Garg

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Krishan Kumar Dhull

Malkhan Singh Vs H. S Gujral and Anr.