Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Paul Chopra vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 March, 2013
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 138 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.03.2013
Mohinder Paul Chopra ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Present : Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. N.S.Boparai, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
A.K.SIKRI C.J.(Oral)
There is a delay of 195 days in filing the appeal.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2009. By that order, the writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein) was partly allowed holding that the appellant shall be entitled to grant of claim of pay revision as per office orders dated 17/18.11.1998 from the date of its approval till the date of his relinquishing the charge. A limited prayer which is made by the appellant is that the claim of pay revision has to be on the basis of his designation as Manager which has not been ordered by the learned Single Judge.
3. We find from the reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had given up other claims and had restricted his claim to the grant of revision of his salary as per the decision of the respondents dated 17/18.11.1998. This is so stated in para No.2 of the LPA No. 138 of 2013 (O&M) [2] impugned judgment. This relief has been granted to the appellant and therefore, we do not understand as to how the appellant can have the grievance against the impugned orders.
4. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant had filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the appellant had not been granted the benefits in terms of the said judgment. This contempt petition was contested by the respondents taking the position that the judgment had been complied with and the benefits were given as per decision dated 17/18.11.1998 which was annexed as Annexure P-5 with the contempt petition. On 06.09.2011, learned counsel for the appellant had withdrawn the aforesaid contempt petition in view of representation Annexure P-5. We also find from the record that the prayer made now was the subject matter of the application of the appellant before the learned Single Judge seeking clarification of the order which application was dismissed on 08.11.2011.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed on-merits as well as on the ground of delay also.
(A.K.SIKRI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
26.03.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
'ravinder' JUDGE