← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/2142/2018dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. Jaspal Singh

2019-02-13Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur3 pages

-1230(7 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 1.

COCP-2142-2018 Date of Decision: February 13, 2019 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh ......Respondent 2.

COCP-2143-2018 Gurkamal Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh .....Respondent 3.

COCP-2144-2018 Shamsher Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh .....Respondent 4.

COCP-2145-2018 Hakam Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh .....Respondent 5.

COCP-2146-2018 Harminder Singh Saini .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh .....Respondent 6.

COCP-2147-2018 Amrik Pal Singh Dhillon .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh ......Respondent 7.

COCP-2148-2018 Raghbir Chand Sharma .....Petitioner

Versus

Jaspal Singh ......Respondent

-2CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:

Mr.Rujhan Dhawan, Advocate for Mr.Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kanisth Ganeriwala, AAG, Punjab.

........

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of the above captioned contempt petitions as the point in issue involved in all the cases is common in nature. For the sake of convenience the facts are being extracted from COCP-21422018. The contempt petition is filed for non-compliance of the order dated 01.03.2018 vide which a direction was issued to look into the grievance unfolded by the petitioner in the representation dated 05.01.2018 and to decide the same in view of the policy/Circular dated 14.03.2017 seeking removal of anomaly in the pay and allowances. Separate replies filed in all the cases except in COCP-21432018 are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the reply filed in other contempt petitions be adopted in COCP-2143-2018 as well.

As per the said replies, the order has been complied with. The claim of the petitioners was considered by the Government and speaking orders have been passed which has been placed on record as Annexure R1. Hence, the order stands complied with.

In view of the same, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the contempt petitions. The same are hereby dismissed.

-3The rule issued against the respondent(s) stands discharged. However, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, i.e. Annexure R1 in any manner, they are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the cases may be adjourned but this Court finds no reason to do so, as admittedly on similar ground, COCP No.2449 of 2018 in CWP No.4832 of 2018 has already been dismissed with liberty as granted to the petitioners herein.

February 13, 2019 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No