Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1446 (HP)

Suresh Kumar v. Arun Sharma

2019-09-25

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have alleged willful disobedience of judgment, dated 02.03.2015, passed by this Court in CWP No. 9640 of 2014, titled as Suresh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, which stood disposed of by this Court in the following terms: ?The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very out set, stated at the Bar that the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in CWP No. 1432 of 2015, titled Shivika Agnihotri and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, and the same relief may be granted in this petition also. His statement is taken on record. 2. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this petition, in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court referred to supra. The aforesaid judgment shall form part of this judgment also. Ordered accordingly.? 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though emoluments in terms of the judgment of this Court in Shivika Agnihotri and others Vs. State of H.P., CWP No. 1432 of 2015 stands released in favour of the petitioners, however, interest thereupon has not been paid to them, as was mandatory in terms of earlier judgment dated 25.09.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 10178 of 2012, titled as Sushil Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sate of H.P. & Ors. 3. In my considered view, the present contempt petition is misconceived, as there is no willful disobedience of any direction passed by this Court in CWP No. 9640 of 2014, titled as Suresh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in the abovementioned petition demonstrates that it was stated at the Bar by the learned counsel in that case that the petition was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1432 of 2015, titled as Shivika Agnihotri and others Vs. State of H.P. All that this Court did vide its order, dated 2nd March, 2015, was that it disposed of CWP No. 9640 of 2014 in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1432 of 2015. 4. Now, a perusal of the judgment, which was passed in CWP No. 1432 of 2015, titled as Shivika Agnihotri and others Vs. 4. Now, a perusal of the judgment, which was passed in CWP No. 1432 of 2015, titled as Shivika Agnihotri and others Vs. State of H.P. and others further demonstrates that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 26th February, 2015 in the following terms: ?It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment, dated 1.1.2015, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5496 of 2014 and the judgment, dated 25.9.2014, passed by the Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10178 of 2012. His statement is taken on record. In view of the above, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents/competent Authority to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgments referred to above and make a decision within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.? 5. A perusal of the said order clearly demonstrates that there was no mandamus issued in favour of Shivika Agnihotri and others by this Court and all that this Court directed the respondents therein was to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 10178 of 2012. 6. In the absence of any mandamus having been issued by this Court in Shivika Agnihotri' case supra coupled with the fact that similarly no mandamus was issued by this Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the present petitioners, it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience of any directions passed by this Court. However, as it is not in dispute that the emoluments which were being claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition filed by them stood paid by the State and the only surviving grievance of the petitioners is regarding non-payment of interest on the alleged delayed payments, it is open to the petitioners to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of said grievance of theirs, if so advised. 7. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners that if so advised, they can file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court of law with regard to their grievance of interest on the alleged delayed payments made to them by the State. Notice discharged.