Nitish And Others v. Sandeep Kumar And Others
102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 05.05.2025 NITISH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y.P. Malik, Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, and Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocates along with respondents No.1 & 3, in person.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1.
Affidavit of Sandeep Khatkar, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Kaithal on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed. The same is taken on record.
2.
On 28.04.2025, following order was passed :
! "#$!#
!% &&
'
(#
) &
* +#, ' % &
-
&
(# !
"
# #
$% $& &$&!
' (
'
)
*+
,'
) &- .
# ' /0%!
'
#
$& $- &$&! .
+
# (
1 '
' ( +2 . ( # #
"
#
/!! /) $% &$&!
1
#
"
&- .
# '
)
+ (
+ % ' ' . / % )
0
% ' %. % %&
* !1
' ' % 2
% 3
4 & 5 1 !
!
4& % , %. # , / # #"
' 6 %. %
-
& / ' 7
%
' & 8)
5
0#90# : ;
, '
#
& % &
4 %
! & %
* 9+
! &
'
%&
/
& /
% &
& / - 0<0 ! & %
& (# 8:
!
"#$!#
!
'
9
) %=1 > 0
*
1 0
* + $ 0
* 9 +
:
= )-
=
!
' ?
3.
There is no dispute regarding pendency of the revision petition. The issue is :
'Whether the petitioners were working on 24.02.2025 or not?' 4.
Appointment letters issued to the petitioners are also not in dispute. As per stand taken by the respondents, the joining reports submitted by the petitioners have been lost. Meaning thereby, furnishing of joining reports, is also not in dispute. Resolution w.r.t. appointment of the 14 petitioners, is also not in dispute. The respondents want to plead that the petitioners were appointed illegally. Admittedly, the issue is pending in revision petition which is yet to be decided. Resolution No.6, dated 22.12.2023 has been cancelled by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies only vide order dated 24.04.2025 i.e. after passing of the order by the Writ Court. Merely, for the reason that the petitioners were not being allowed to mark their presence, they cannot be held to be not working. 5.
In view thereof, this Court finds that respondents No.1 and 3 are guilty of having committed Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
6.
Affidavit of Sandeep Khatkar, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Kaithal, filed on behalf of respondent No.1 today in Court, also shows that communication dated 28.03.2025 addressed by District Manager,
HAFED, Kaithal to DRCS Kurukshetra, is post in time from the date of the order passed by the writ court.
7.
Senior Counsel for the respondents, at this stage, prays for time to address on the sentence and also submits that a CM has been filed before the Writ Court seeking recalling of the order dated 24.02.2025. 8.
Now to address arguments on sentence, to come up on 2.00 PM. May 05, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge At 2:00 PM 1.
After lunch, Mr. Garg has appeared. He has handed-over copy of the order passed by the Writ Court. The same reads as under: "xxxx xxxx xxxx CM-6659-CWP-2025 The applicant through instant application under Section 151 CPC is seeking recalling of order dated 24.02.2025 whereby main petition was disposed of in the light of statement of State counsel. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate submits that petitioners are not working with respondent No.3. This Court by aforesaid order has disposed of main petition in the light of statement of State counsel. The State counsel had averred that ROR would be adjudicated within 3 months and petitioners would be permitted to continue if they are working as on date. The petitioners were not working on 24.02.2025, thus, respondent is not supposed to engage them or permit to work.
From Para No.3 of aforesaid order, it is quite lucid that State counsel had submitted that if petitioners are working as on date, they would continue to work till the adjudication of ROR. She had not stated that petitioners are actually working. She had categorically stated that "if" they are working. Thus, it was very clear that petitioners would be allowed to work if they were working on 24.02.2025.
Application stands disposed of with aforesaid observations."
2.
Perusal of the order shows that the Writ Court has reiterated its order dated 24.02.2025.
3.
Mr. Garg on the quantum of sentence submits that both the respondents are government servants.
4.
Apart from the aforesaid admission, nothing material has been argued.
5.
Petitioners are unemployed youth who have been forced to undergo multiple rounds of litigation. Despite there being specific order passed by the Writ Court allowing them to continue, the respondents have shown incorrigible attitude and least respect for rule of law. 6.
In view thereof, each of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month. They are directed to be detained in civil prison. 7.
At this stage, affidavits of respondents No.1 and 3 have been filed accompanied by applications filed under Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8.
The convicts seek suspension of punishment to avail remedy of appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9.
Sentence of the convicts i.e. respondents No.1 and 3 is ordered to be suspended for three weeks in order to avail remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
10.
Contempt petition is disposed off.
11.
Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed off. 12.
A copy of this order be given to respondents No.1 and 3 under the signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court. May 05, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No