Gurdayal Singh And Others v. Dr Manish Bansal

COCP-3816-2025 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-3816-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 Gurdayal Singh Nahar and others ......Petitioners Vs.

Dr. Manish Bansal and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Ms. Anjali Thakur, Advocate, for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 20.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-20029-2024, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to file specific orders after considering the case of the petitioners.

2.

In compliance of the order dated 20.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-20029-2024, compliance report by way of affidavit dated 16.01.2026 of Dr. Manish Bansal, Director General, Health Services, Haryana, along with speaking orders of different dates (Annexures R-2 to R-18), has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 before the Registry. The same is taken on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the designation and department of petitioner No.18 have not been mentioned in VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.03.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-3816-2025 (O&M) -2the present contempt petition because of which, a speaking order qua her could not be passed. He further contends that so far as petitioners No.1 to 17 are concerned, order dated 20.04.2025 has been complied with. 4.

A perusal of the affidavit shows that order dated 20.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-20029-2024 has been complied with qua petitioners No.1 to 17.

5.

In view of the above, since order dated 20.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-20029-2024, has been complied with, therefore, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged qua petitioners No.1 to 17. However, so far as petitioner No.18 is concerned, liberty is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to file a fresh contempt petition with better particulars. 6.

Needless to say that petitioners No.1 to 17 are at liberty to avail remedy as is available to them in accordance with law to challenge the aforesaid speaking orders.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 11.03.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.03.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document