THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 2nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT (TRIBUNAL) No.1071 of 2020 Between:

SHANTI DEVI, W/O BAKSHI RAM VILLAGE VELAG, PO JIJVI, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

….PETITIONER (MR. S.V. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND ANIL KUMAR KHACHI, PRINCPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE), HP SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-02.

….RESPONDENT (MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)

Whether approved for reporting?.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 12.6.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) No. 367 of 2018, whereby direction was issued to the responfdent to consider and decide the case of the appellant in light of the order dated 21.12.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8964 of 2008, Prem Ran and Ors v. State of HP and Ors. While passing aforesaid order, erstwhile Tribunal also ordered that in case petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the aforesaid case, sheo may be extended the similar benefits. Since needful never came to be done at the behest of the respondent in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated, she has approached this Court in the hinstant proceedings.

2. Reply to the petition stands filed, perusal whereof clearly reveals that respondent in compliance to aforesaid directions issued by the Herstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal has already granted benefit to the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Prem Ran’s case (supra) as is evident from the order dated 1.6.2019, passed by the District Treasury Officer, whereby monitory benefits have been restricted for three years, prior to date of filing of the petition.

3. Having carefully perused aforesaid order, this court is convinced and satisfied that order alleged to have been violated already stands complied with. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and sfame are closed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance, ifr any.

2nd September, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge