Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranjit Singh vs Sh. K.B.S. Sidhu And Ors on 14 July, 2009

Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                      COCP No.1928 of 2008(O&M)
                                      Date of decision: 14.7.2009

Ranjit Singh                                       ......Petitioner

                                Versus

Sh. K.B.S. Sidhu and ors.                          .......Respondents

CORAM:-     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

                         * * *

Present:    Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for
            the respondents.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

CM No.23908-CII of 2008 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1928 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition, CWP No.18723 of 1996 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 15.3.1997 and the respondents were directed to step up the pay of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 1.3.1995 passed in CWP No.17005 of 1989.

It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment passed in favour of the petitioner was complied with by the respondent-Department by passing order dated 11.3.1998 vide Annexure P-3.

The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that now vide Annexure P-4 i.e. order dated 24.9.2008, the aforesaid benefit granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn by applying certain instructions which were not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, since the order 15.3.1997 (Annexure P-2) was admittedly complied with and the order Annexure P-4 has been passed after 10 years of the compliance of the judgment Annexure P-2, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. COCP No.1928 of 2008(O&M) -2-

Rule discharged.

If the petitioner is aggrieved against the withdrawal of certain benefits by application of wrong instructions in his case, he may seek an appropriate remedy against the same in accordance with law.

July 14, 2009                           (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                              JUDGE