← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/4660/2024disposed of

Prem Dass v. Sh C.B. Ojha And Another

2025-08-25Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 25th, 2025 Prem Dass ......Petitioner Vs.

Sh. C.B. Ojha and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Balraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parminder Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. Rohit, Advocate for UT-Chandigarh.

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

Present contempt petition is filed for initiating proceedings against the respondents for the non-compliance of the judgment dated 17.07.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-23872-2014. 2.

The relevant portion of the order dated 17.07.2024 is reproduced as under:- "9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, it is concluded that petitioner was indeed entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on 13.05.2013 when the post in question fell vacant and respondent no.4 was appointed thereon by way of deputation from the State of Punjab. Impugned order dated 27.07.2014 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Central Administrator Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch, Chandigarh, besides order dated 07.02.2005 (Annexure P-3) are set aside and petitioner is held

-2entitled to count the service rendered by him on current duty charge basis from 05.08.1999 to 07.02.2005 and from 20.06.2008 to 02.10.2013 towards qualifying service for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Public Health). It is thus directed that case of petitioner for promotion be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say petitioner would not be entitled to any actual emoluments for the period in question but only to notional benefits for the period of service but would be entitled for consideration of the same for determination of pensionary benefits.

10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed."

3.

Learned State counsel contends that in compliance of order dated 17.07.2024, short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh.C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration dated 18.08.2025 has been filed.

4.

Para 5 to 7 of the affidavit dated 18.08.2025, are reproduced as under:- "5. That answering respondent has implemented the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 17.07.2024 and has promoted the petitioner to the next rank of Executive Engineer (Public Health) on regular basis in the Engineering Department in Chandigarh w.e.f. 13.05.2013 on notional basis. The copy of order by the answering respondent is dated 02.04.2025 passed annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2. Whereby they have implemented and complied with the direction passed by the Hon'ble court order dated 17.04.2024.

6. That on 08.07.2025 the monitory benefits consequent to the order dated 02.04.2025 have also been

-3released to the petitioner the copy of order dated 08.07.2025 is annexed herewith ANNEXURE R-3. Further the Office of Principal Account General (A&E) Punjab and U.T. Chandigarh has further revised the pension of the petitioner and the necessary direction has been given to the disbursing bank to grant revise pension to the petitioner. The copy of letter dated 29.05.2025 issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Punjab and U.T. Chandigarh is annexed herewith ANNEXURE R-4.

7. That the deponent has at most respect of all the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court and tendered its unconditional apology to the Hon'ble Court for the delay in implementing the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court. The delay has occurred for the reason explained hereinabove it was neither intentional or deliberate but for the reason mentioned aforesaid. That now all the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court has been complied with and this compliance report is being now filed before this Hon'ble Court."

5.

A perusal of above shows that order dated 17.07.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-23872-2014, has been complied with. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.

In view of the same contempt is purged and rule is discharged. August 25th, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No