Sunny Duggal v. Varun Bharti And ANR

COCP-334-2021 (O&M) -1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-334-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Sunny Duggal .... Petitioner

Versus

Varun Bharti and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present Contempt Petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed in LPA No. 409 of 2020 titled as Amandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others; wherein it was directed as follows:- "We also direct that all the teachers and staff members, whether permanent or appointed on contractual basis/ad-hoc basis/temporary shall be entitled to their regular salaries, which they were getting before imposition of lock-down on 23.03.2020.

Since the students are not being transported to and fro due to lock-down, the School Managements shall not charge any transportation charges till further orders.

COCP-334-2021 (O&M) -2 - from today.

The directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.06.2020 shall stand modified accordingly to the extent as ordered here-in-above till the disposal of these appeals."

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in violation of the above said categoric and clear directions of this Court, respondents have failed to pay salary to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had been working with the respondents since 2017 till 08.04.2020 and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been paid salary in compliance of order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that there was never any appointment letter issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner worked on daily basis with the respondents as a Typist, as and when required. Petitioner was not even a Writ Petitioner before this Court and was neither an appellant in the LPA No.

409 of 2020 (Annexure P-1). It is further submitted that even the said LPA stands dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025, a copy of which is handed over in Court today, and taken on record. It is contended that accordingly, the petitioner was not an employee with the respondents on the date of passing of order dated 01.10.2020. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the averments made by the petitioner himself in para 5 of the present Contempt Petition, which reads as under:- "5.

COCP-334-2021 (O&M) -3 - petitioner and on 08.04.2020 he was asked to stop doing online work. Here it would be relevant to mention services of petitioner were never terminated by the respondents." Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts on record.

Accordingly, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, present Contempt Petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Rule stands discharged.

23.09.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No