In a contempt petition, the petitioner complained of non-implementation of a Court direction to consider his case for regularization. The Court found a government order in the context was discretionary. No further orders were required.
Contempt petition disposed of; Rule discharged.
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-1662-2025 (O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
105
COCP No.1662 of 2025 Date of decision :-02.04.2025
Lal Chand and another
…..Petitioners
Versus
Kanwar Lal, DGM (HRD), Punjab & Sind Bank and another
…..Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advo c ate for the petitioners.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
The petitioners have filed t h e present contempt petition for viola t ing the order dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordin a te Bench of this Court in CWP- 2 5000-2014.
It is submitted by learned c o unsel for the petitioners that vide orde r dated 30.8.2024, the responde n ts have been directed by this Court to consider the case of the petitio n ers for regularization. It is submitte d that despite the clear directio n of this Court, no action has been tak e n thereupon.
Heard.
The directions of this Court contained in the order dated
30.8.202 4 (Annexure P-1) are as follows :-
“xxx xxx xxx
10. Mr. Vinod B h ardwaj, Advocate, at this stage, submits that re s pondents may be directed to
VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP-1662-2025 (O & M) 2
consider them for reg u larization. Their case is not considered because o f pendency of the present petition.
11. The petitione rs are working with the respondent-bank for quite long time, thus, bank may consider their case for regularization in accordance with law.
xxx xxx xxx
In pursuance thereto, the pe t itioners had supplied a copy of the said order to the respondent s vide representation dated 22.9.202 4 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, advance notice of contempt petition dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) was served by the petitione r s to the respondents; upon whi c h the reply dated 29.12.2024 (Annexu r e P-5) was received, wherein, r elevant documents including service r ecords, mode of appointme n t, claim against available sanctioned post, if any etc. were sough t from the petitioners. Vide represent a tion dated 23.1.2025 (Annexur e P-6) the said documents are stated to h ave been supplied by the petiti o ners to the respondents. Keeping in view the above said facts, as also the fact that vide ord e r dated 30.8.2024 the respond e nts had only been directed that they “may consider” the case of the p etitioners for regularization, no furthe r orders are required to be passe d in the matter.
The present petition stands disposed of . Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.
April 02, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No
VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Lal Chand
Kanwar Lal
NIDHI GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
