R.K. Sharma And Others vs Anil Khachi And Another on 20 July, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

R.K. Sharma And Others vs Anil Khachi And Another on 20 July, 2020

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                         COPC(T) No. 728 of 2020
                                        Decided on: July 20, 2020




                                                                                .
    _______________________________________________________________





    R.K. Sharma and others                       ...........Petitioners
                                   Versus
    Anil Khachi and another                         ....Respondents
    _______________________________________________________________





    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.

    For the Petitioners                    :      Mr. Raj Negi, Advocate, through





                                                  video-conferencing.

    For the Respondents                    :
                                  Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
                                  General    with    Mr.    Sudhir
                                  Bhatnagar    and    Mr.    Arvind
                        r         Sharma, Additional Advocates
                                  General and Mr. Kunal Thakur,

                                  Deputy Advocate General
    _______________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present petition filed under S S.17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 8.1.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3479 of 2016, titled R.K. Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the Original Application, having been filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents/competent Authority to pay to the petitioners arrears, if any, of dearness relief on pension/family pension for the period the dearness relief was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2020 20:21:18 :::HCHP 2

excluded from pension/family pension, vide decision dated 30.12.2015. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the .

respondent in pursuance to order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondent, in accordance with law.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by respondent No.1, this Court finds that CWP No. 1057 of 2018 was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh laying therein challenge to the order alleged to have been violated in the case at hand. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that the aforesaid writ petition filed by the state has been dismissed and as such, respondents have no option but to implement the order in question.

3. Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and same are closed with a direction to the respondents to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order in question, within a period of four weeks from today.

Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondents fail to comply with the order in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 20, 2020 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2020 20:21:18 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court