Disposed¶¶37

Ramesh Kumar Arora & Ors. v. Sudarshan Sharma and Anr.

Contempt Petition (COCP) – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2025COCP/1266/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COCP-1266-2015 (O&M); Ramesh Kumar Arora & others v. Sudarshan Sharma & another; contempt petition; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Sudeepti Sharma, J.; decided 01.09.2025; disposed of in terms of order dated 12.04.2023 in COCP-1734-2014; SLP No. 13110/2008; CWP-4081-2007; SLP (C) Nos. 10873, 10878, 10879, 11498 of 2006; gratuity; leave encashment; contributory provident fund; college teachers; State of Punjab 90% reimbursement; writ petitions revived by Supreme Court; interim order 02.04.2009; infructuous; rule discharged; liberty to revive; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of order dated 12.04.2023 passed in COCP-1734-2014; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶¶37

Ramesh Kumar Arora & Ors. Vs Sudarshan Sharma and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of order dated 12.04.2023 passed in COCP-1734-2014; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the present case, which was not listed with the bunch of connected cases decided on 12.04.2023, should also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court in COCP-1734-2014.

¶¶35

Court's answer

The present case is disposed of in terms of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court in COCP-1734-2014, i.e., in the same terms as the connected bunch of cases, learned State counsel having raised no objection.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COCP) – Punjab & Haryana High Court – disposal in terms of earlier bunch order. COCP-1266-2015 (O&M) (Ramesh Kumar Arora & others v. Sudarshan Sharma & another), which had been left out of the bunch of connected contempt cases decided on 12.04.2023 alongwith COCP-1734-2014, was on 01.09.2025 disposed of by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma in the same terms as that order, on the request of petitioners' counsel to which learned State counsel raised no objection; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. Background (as recorded in the quoted order dated 12.04.2023): the judgment/order dated 18.12.2007 of this Court in CWP-4081-2007 and connected writ petitions – under which the college managements were held liable to pay gratuity, leave encashment and contributory provident fund to college teachers, with the State held liable to reimburse 90% of the CPF amount – was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13110/2008; the Supreme Court revived the listed writ petitions for fresh hearing, continued the interim arrangement of 02.04.2009 (payments by managements, reimbursement by State) until the revived writs were decided and subject to their result, and the SLPs were dismissed as withdrawn, whereupon the contempt petitions stood disposed of; in COCP-1734-2014 the petitions were held infructuous at that stage as the matter remained sub judice before the writ Court(s), rule was discharged, and liberty was given to revive after decision of the writ petition(s).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(202)

¶3

COCP-1266-2015 (O&M) Decided on : 01.09.2025

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Arora & others ……Petitioners Versus

¶5

Sudarshan Sharma & another ……Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶7

Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.V.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr.Ravneet S.Joshi, DAG, Punjab.

¶9

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶10

Registry has put up the case on account of the fact that the above-mentioned case had to be listed with COCP-1734-2014 alongwith bunch of connected cases on 12.04.2023 and vide order dated 12.04.2023, the said bunch was decided. However, the present case was not listed alongwith the connected cases.

¶11

The following order was passed in COCP-1734-2014 on

¶12

12.04.2023:

¶13

“Learned State counsel submits that the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007, passed by this Court in CWP-4081-2007 and other connected writ petitions was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13110/2008 and Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:

¶14

“1. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appears for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Managing Committee of S.S. D. Girls College and others.

¶15

2. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, appears for the Managing Committee, A.S. Baba A.S.J.S. Memorial College. 3. There are some petitions, which are filed by the State of Punjab also. Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR, appears for the State of Punjab.

¶16

SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.03 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

COCP-1266-2015 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

4. All these petitions seek to challenge the orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in different writ petitions. The consequence of these orders have been that the CollegeManagements have been held liable to pay the gratuity and leave encashment, and the contributory provident fund to the college teachers (which include Librarians and teachers incharge of physical institution).

¶20

As far as contributory provident fund is concerned, the State is held liable to reimburse 90% of that amount.

¶21

5. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel points out that there are many aspects in these matters arising out of various statutes of the universities and the ordinances, which were placed placed before the High Court but the judgment of the High Court does not reflect on any of these submissions.

¶22

6. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and we are of the view that the submissions raised in these Special leave petitions which were also raised in the replies to the writ petitions in the High Court, ought to have been gone into by the High Court. In the circumstances, we revive all those writ petitions decided by the High Court, mentioned hereinbelow. They will be heard and decided afresh by the High Court after considering the submissions of the College Managements, the State of Punjab, as well as the teachers on the merits of those submissions. The numbers of writ petitions is as under:

¶23

"CWP Nos. 4081, 6439 and 6395, all of 2007, CW No. 10315 of 2007, CWP No. 23 of 2012, CWP No.16166 of 2011, No. 792 of 2011, CWP No. 8774 of 2004, CP No. 76 of 2006, CWP No. 12965 OF 2005, ,CW No. 18372 of 2004, CW No. 1105 of 2004 and CW No.12550 of 2003". 7. We note that in these matters, there has been an interim order dated 2nd April, 2009, whereby the College Managements were required to make these payments and then seek reimbursements from the State Government. This arrangement will apply to all the teachers until the revived writ petitions are decided. We make it clear that this arrangement will also be subject to the result of those writ petitions, which we expect the High Court to decide at the earliest.

¶24

SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.03 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

COCP-1266-2015 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

8. In SLP (C) Nos. 10873, 10878, 10879 and 11498, all of 2006, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR appears for the petitionerManaging Committee, S.K.R.M. College. In these matters there will be same order as above. However, as far as the direction of the High Court to pay the arrears of salary is concerned, that will be honoured by the College.

¶28

9. These Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

¶29

10. In view of the disposal of the Special Leave Petitions, the contempt petitions also stand disposed of.”

¶30

Learned State counsel further submits that in terms of the order, the State of Punjab is making payment of leave encashment and gratuity to the petitioners, who were petitioners before Hon’ble Supreme Court and post remand, the matter is pending before the writ Court(s).

¶31

Since the matter is subjudice before the writ Court(s), the present petitions are rendered infructuous, at this stage.

¶32

Rule stands discharged.

¶33

The petitioners are granted liberty to revive these petitions by moving an appropriate application after decision of the writ petition(s), if so required.

¶34

Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case be also disposed of in terms of order dated 12.04.2023, passed by this Court in COCP-1734-2014 alongwith bunch of connected cases.

¶36

Learned State counsel also does not dispute the said fact and has no objection if the present case is disposed of in the same terms.

¶37

Hence, ordered accordingly. The present case is disposed of in terms of order dated 12.04.2023, passed by this Court in COCP-1734-2014. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶38

September 1, 2025 sailesh

¶39

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

¶40

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶41

SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.03 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ramesh Kumar Arora & Ors. v. Sudarshan Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Arora & Ors. v. Sudarshan Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharambir and Ors. Vs Jee Annu Pama Dy Commr.

Hari Kishan Chaudhary Vs Arya Sen. Sec. School & Anr.

Poonam Vs Gulshan Taneha

R.P. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs Roshan Sankaria & Ors.

Prem Chand Markanda Sd College for Women Vs Roshan Sunkaria & Anr.

Sukhjinder Singh Alias Sukhi Vs Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ias, District Magistrate