Dismissed

Dalbir Singh Mangat v. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2017COCP/387/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposal of a contempt of courts petition where the petitioner alleged withdrawal of retirement benefits following a notice, but the court found no record proving the benefits were stopped solely because of the notice, leading to dismissal of contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dismissed due to lack of cause of action; liberty granted to petitioner to file reply to the notice.

Dalbir Singh Mangat Vs Mandeep Singh Sandhu and… — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

COCP No.387 of 2017 Date of decision: 20.02.2017

¶3

Dalbir Singh Mangat

¶4

..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Mandeep Singh Sandhu and others ..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶8

Present: Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

¶10

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶11

This contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 on the ground that the order of cancellation of ACP granted to the petitioner on completion of nine years of service, was withdrawn and the writ petition was rendered infructuous. Subsequently, a notice has been issued to the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of issuance of notice, even the retiral benefits have not been released to the petitioner for which, he is entitled.

¶13

As per order passed by this Court on 28.11.2016, it was stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the matter is under consideration before the competent authority and subsequently, vide order dated 21.12.2016, the writ petition was rendered infructuous on the basis of statement made by learned State counsel that order of cancellation of ACP benefit granted to the petitioner on completion of nine years of service has

¶14

Neetu Rani 2017.02.27 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

COCP No.387 of 2017

¶16

¶17

been withdrawn.

¶18

Subsequently, a notice has been issued to the petitioner because of which, the petitioner is not being granted retiral benefits.

¶19

Nothing has been placed on record to show as to whether reply to the notice has been filed by the petitioner or not. Non-payment of retiral benefits cannot be considered as non-compliance of order because neither any order nor any document has been placed on record to show that the retiral benefits have been stopped only because of issuance of notice.

¶20

Hence, there is no cause of action to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

However, the petitioner is at liberty to give reply to the notice.

¶23

20.02.2017 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶24

Neetu Rani 2017.02.27 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Dalbir Singh Mangat v. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh Mangat v. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs R.S.Kharb

G.D.Aggarwal Vs Arun Kumar and Anr.

Chaman Lal Vs Harpreet Singh and Anr.

Naresh and Ors. Vs Atul Kumar and Ors.

Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs Parveen Kumar Thind

Satinder Pal Singh and Ors. Vs Parveen Kumar Thind