← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/291/2017disposed of

Sri Ram v. Shakti Singh Managing Director Sugar Mills

2017-02-09Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH COCP No.291 of 2017 Date of decision: 09.02.2017 Sri Ram ..Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Shakti Singh ..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful disobedience of order dated 11.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in CWP No.17812 of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed said writ petition challenging rejection order dated 18.04.2012 whereby pay of the petitioner was reduced and the same was admitted vide order dated 11.01.2016 and operation of order Annexure P-2 was also stayed. Learned counsel also submits that order dated 11.01.2016 is annexed as Annexure P-1 with this contempt petition.

On perusal of Annexure P-4, it is apparent that it is reply to the legal notice submitted by the petitioner and it is only reply to the notice served upon the respondents. It cannot be said that the compliance of the order is there as only the factual position has been conveyed by way of reply to the legal notice. However, it is expected that an order of recovery should Neetu Rani 2017.02.20 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

COCP No.291 of 2017 have been conveyed to the petitioner. The impugned order could have come into operation in case, any order of reduction of pay has been passed but no such order is on record.

Hence, no ground is made out to issue notice in the contempt petition as there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Disposed of accordingly.

However, the respondent is directed to convey the order of recovery, if the same has not been conveyed. In case, any order has been passed or is to be passed subsequently, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy.

09.02.2017 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No Neetu Rani 2017.02.20 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh