← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/2804/2017dismissed

Ram Chand v. Harkamal Singh Khurmi & ANR

2018-07-10Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

COCP 2804/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH COCP 2804/2017 Date of decision:10.07.2018 Ram Chand ..............Petitioner v.

Harkamal Singh Khurmi and another ..............Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present:- Mr.PK Goklaney,Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Anu Chatrath,Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.MM Pandey,Advocate for respondent-PSPCL Jaswant Singh,J,(Oral).

This order will dispose of above mentioned contempt petition as well as 15* other contempt petitions mentioned at the foot note of this order, as identical issue is involved in these petitions and can be disposed of by a common order.

Petitioners in these contempt petitions filed different writ petitions for grant of benefit of promotional increment to them in view of circular dated 23.4.1990 and in terms of decision dated 24.1.2012 in CWP No.10808 of 2007 upheld by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.7.2012 in LPA No.883/2012. Further the matter attained finality with dismissal of SLP No.20468/2012 and others. It was further submitted that the said benefit had already been afforded to similarly situated employees. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.2.2016 wherein it was held that those petitioners who stood retired from service before 17.3.2010 and had completed 23 years of regular service as on 17.3.2010 were entitled Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2018.07.11 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP 2804/2017 to financial benefit of promotional increment. Since the necessary relief, even after passing the said order was not granted to petitioners, they filed the present bunch of contempt petitions.

Notice of motion was issued and compliance report was directed to be placed on the files of these petitions. At the time of hearing today, counsel for the parties state that the relief allowed by this Court stands granted to the petitioners in all these contempt petitions, thus rendering them infructuous. In view of the above, the present bunch of 16 contempt petitions is dismissed as infructuous.

10.07.2018 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No *1. COCP 2805/2017 Gurbachan Singh v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

2. COCP 2806/2017 Rama Shankar v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

3. COCP 2807/2017 Hoshiar Chand v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

4. COCP 2808/2017 Mohinder Pal v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

5. COCP 2809/2017 Chander Dev Rai v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

6. COCP 2810/2017 Ramesh Kumar v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

7. COCP 2811/2017 Bag Singh Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

8. COCP 2812/2017 Surjan Singh v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

9. COCP 2813/2017 Kheta Singh v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr. 10.COCP 2814/2017 Mahinder Singh v Harkamal Singh Khurmi and anr.

11.COCP 3168/2017 Reshma Rani v Raj Kumar Jindal and another 12.COCP 3374/2017 Kashmir Singh v Raj Kumar Jindal and anr. 13.COCP 3375/2017 Pusu Singh v Raj Kumar Jindal and anr. 14.COCP 3499/2017 Mohan Singh v Raj Kumar Jindal and anr. 15.COCP 3500/2017 Pritpal Singh v Raj Kumar Jindal and anr. Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2018.07.11 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document