Disposed

Sandeep Kumar v. Shri Vinay Kumar, Irps and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2024COCP/2930/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of a petition for contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance with a recruitment order. The court noted that the petitioner's appointment was recommended on 16.09.2024 and must be finalized within two weeks. The petition is dismissed if complianc

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; future activation of contempt proceedings and imposition ofadditional costs reserved if appointment is not made within two weeks.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Shri Vinay Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

140/2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP-2930-2024 Date of Decision: September 16, 2024

SANDEEP KUMAR

........Petitioner

Versus

SHRI VINAY KUMAR, IRPS AND OTHERS

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶11

Present: M s . Anu Chatrath Sr. Advocate with M r . Nikhil Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ratik Kapur, Advocate fo r the petitioner. M r . Pawan Kumar Longia, DA G , Haryana. ****

¶12

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

B y way of present petition fil e d under Section 12 of th e Contempt of C ourts Act, 1971, prayer ha s been made for initiation o f contempt pro c eedings against the respondents on account of allege d willful non-co m pliance of order dated 18.1 2 .2023 passed in CWP-5822 - 2022, decide d vide a common order passe d in CWP-23467-2021.

¶14

L e arned State counsel inform s that name of the petitione r has been rec o mmended by the Haryana S t aff Selection Commission fo r the post of A rt and Craft Teacher vide r ecommendation letter date d 16.09.2024 a n d appointment in pursuance thereof shall be made withi n a period of tw o weeks from today.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid under t aking, the present petition i s

¶16

disposed of.

¶17

H o wever, in case the need f ul is not done within th e aforemention e d period, as per the undert a king, the petitioner would b e at liberty to s e ek revival of the contempt p e tition and in that eventuality, TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.09.18 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

COCP-2930-2024

¶20

the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately, ie. on the first date of listing of revival application.

¶21

16.09.2024 Tejwinder	(	HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶22

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.09.18 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Kumar v. Shri Vinay Kumar, Irps and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Shri Vinay Kumar, Irps and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vagish Mittal Vs Vikash Dahiya and Others

Santokh Singh and Others Vs Paramjit Singh

Lakhwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Nilkanth .S . Avhad, IAS

Jitender Kumar Vs Sh. Vinay Kumar, Irps

M/S Royal Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Parminder Singh

Scocre Rating Agency and Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Omg Network India Pvt. Ltd.