Kuldeep Kumar And Others v. Ajoy Kumar Sinha And Another


 

  
        
  

 



!"!

# $ %&'& 

()*

+ (),- #

.

-"

&&&&&&  !!

# -"

/ -")"

0 (),- 2!#. # # .

-

&&&&&&  "+ # #"

3 $

 45 3& 2
  ( 

Present:

Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab with Dr. Preeti Padda, Nodal Officer, Legal DRME, Punjab.

****  ( 

&

7-*8 1.

The operative part of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed in CWP No.1754 of 2021 reads as under:0 "Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case, any representation is received from the petitioners raising the grievance qua the fixation of their pay that the same has been fixed wrongly even after applying Instructions dated 17.07.2020, the same will be looked into and conscience decision will be taken and an appropriate order will be passed within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case, it is found that grievance raised by the petitioners is valid, the same will be removed and benefit will be extended to the petitioners but in case, the department is of the view that the benefit extended to the petitioners is as per the terms and conditions of the instructions dated 17.07.2020, due reasons will be given in the speaking order so passed, which order will be conveyed to the petitioners for their information and necessary action.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the statement of the learned State counsel, the DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


 

present petitions may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in case, the order passed by the respondents will cause prejudice to the petitioners." 2.

Order in compliance thereof has been passed, which has been placed on record alongwith affidavit as Annexure R01. Counsel for the petitioners seeks to argue that the pay scales of Staff Nurse as mentioned in para 9 giving reference to 5th Pay Commission as 103000 34800+3200 is wrong, as the grade pay is 9 and not 3200. 3.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the wrong mentioning of a fact in the order passed pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court cannot be said to be a willful disobedience, though the petitioners shall have a right to challenge the same by filing separate writ petition.

4.

Finding no merits in the present contempt petition, this Court finds that no further order is required to be passed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the same. 5.

Disposed off as such.

7 ( 

 %&'& 

Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether Reportable :

No DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document