Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohan Lal vs Ram Kumar Gautam And Another on 15 July, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC(T) No. 516 of 2020
Decided on: July 15, 2020
_______________________________________________________________
.
Mohan Lal ...........Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kumar Gautam and another ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate,
through video-conferencing.
For the Respondents :
Mr. Chander Shekhar Thakur,
Advocate, through video-
conferencing.
_______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of instant contempt petition field under Ss. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed order 18.4.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4859 of 2015, titled Mohan Lal vs. H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation Limited and others, whereby learned Tribunal below, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 26.3.2014 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2, in light of judgment dated 11.4.2012 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 20:22:22 :::HCHP 2rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9985 of 2011, Mohan Lal vs. H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation Limited .
and others, within thirty days from the date of production of a certified coy of the order by the petitioner. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondents in pursuance to the order, petitioner has instituted present proceedings against the respondents, praying therein for taking appropriate action against them, in accordance with law. r
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the respondents, this Court finds that the respondents issued instructions to the field functionaries to give wide publicity before opening of such training centres including In charge, Kullu complex, but petitioner neither applied nor appeared before the Selection Committee for interview. Though, in the case at hand, petitioner claimed post of Weaving Master, but he was appointed as Instructor for imparting training to the trainees for a specific period of six months , which was automatically terminated/ discontinued after completion of training programme, hence, his claim as claimed against the post was not found to be tenable and accordingly rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 20:22:22 :::HCHP 33. However, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has refuted the averments made in the reply and stressed .
that her client filed a representation (Annexure C-2), which has not been decided by the respondents and her client would be content, if present proceedings are closed with a direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner.
4. Consequently, present proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged with a direction to the respondents to decide Annexure C-2, within four weeks and convey the order, if any, passed thereupon to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law, qua his surviving grievances, in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 15, 2020 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 20:22:22 :::HCHP