IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 Asha Rani ..Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Singh Sarao ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 29.01.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-19026-2023.

2. This Court had passed the following directions in CWP-19026-

2023, vide its order dated 29.01.2025:-

“10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the settled principle of law noticed here-in-before, the recovery being done from the petitioner after her retirement is not permissible and the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-13) is accordingly set-

aside.

11. Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that in compliance of the order dated 29.01.2025, recovery done from the petitioner has already been refunded back to the petitioner.

5. A perusal of file reveals that the directions issued by this Court have already been duly complied with before filing of the present contempt petition. No material has been produced by the petitioner to establish any willful, deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent. Despite having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioner chose to file present contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

6. Normally when there is apparent contempt by the official respondents, this Court imposes costs to be deducted from their salary for non-compliance of the order. The present case is the set example of the litigants, who are in the habit of blaming/targeting the official respondents unnecessarily. A perusal of the file shows that there is no disobedience by the respondent, rather, he is doing his duties effectively and efficiently.

7. A perusal of the whole file of this case shows that the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition by blaming the official respondent by name. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

8. It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this Court.

9. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022” The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:-

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse