Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Vijay Kumari And Others on 21 May, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.1018 of 2018 Date of decision : 21.5 .2018 State of Himachal Pradesh and others .... Petitioners.
Versus Vijay Kumari and others .... Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate r General with Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, Ms. Rita Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. A.Gs. for the State.
For the Respondents : Mr. M.C. Verma and Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocates for R-1.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Respondent before this Court had filed a writ petition which on transfer was decided by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla as TA No.1375 of 2015 , titled as Vijay Kumari, on 30.6.2016.
Vide order dated 30.6.2016, learned Tribunal disposed of the original application in the following terms:-
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 22:51:32 :::HCHP
...2...
"8. As such, it is clear that the applicant has been discriminated. Respondent No.2 has not .
afforded benefit of instructions dated 30.11.1996 to the applicant. The applicant has also been brought on contract basis. The applicant is entitled to the benefit of contract service. The applicant is entitled to the benefit of instructions dated 30.11.1996, at par with her juniors S/Sh. Prem Chand Sharma, Sohan Lal and Smt. Rajni Sharma Lal.
9. In view of the above, the transferred application is allowed and re spondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization as Electrician Foreman in terms of instructions dated 30.11.1996 in Government Polytechnic Sundernagar from the date her juniors were regularized, within three months from the production of a certified copy of this judgment."
2. Pursuant to order passed by the learned Tribunal, respondent-authority passed order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P-7) and rejected the case of the original applicant for the purpose of regularization in the department. Rather than, assailing the said order, by way of filing fresh original application, contempt petition was ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 22:51:32 :::HCHP ...3...
filed by the original applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal in said contempt .
petition, Sta te has filed the present petition.
3. Heard for some time. At this stage, Mr. M.C. Verma prays that the original applicant may be permitted to withdraw the contempt petition which was filed before the learned Tribunal with liberty to independently challenge order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel further prays that as the statutory period provided under the Administrative Tribunal Act to assail the said order has already expired, therefore, this Court may observe that limitation shall not come in the way of the private respondent in independently assailing the said order.
4. As prayed for, respondent/original applicant is permitted to withdraw Contempt Petition No.311/2016, titled as Smt. Vijay Kumari vs. Shri Sanjay Gupta and others, which was filed by the original applicant before the learned Tribunal. As a result of the said contempt petition, having been permitted to be withdrawn by the original applicant, order passed in the said contempt petition by ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 22:51:32 :::HCHP ...4...
the learned Tribunal which is impugned by way of this petition is rendered inoperative and ineffective. Further, .
as prayed for, the original applicant is permitted to assail the order dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P-7), by way of initiating fresh proceedings, in accordance with law, before the learned Tribunal. It is further clarified that in case the said order is assailed within a period of four weeks from today, then limitation shall not come in the way of the original applicant and learned Tribunal shall decide the original application on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol),
Acting Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
May 21, 2018 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 22:51:32 :::HCHP