IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CACP No. 31 of 2024 (O&M)

in COCP No. 3663 of 2024 in CWP No. 22956 of 2021 Reserved on: 27.11.2024 Pronounced on: 08.1.2025 Amit Kumar Aggarwal and others .....Appellants Versus Jagwanti Devi ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Argued by: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondent already proceeded against ex parte.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.9.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in COCP No. 3663 of 2024.

Brief facts of the case.

2. The husband of the respondent herein was appointed as Mali on daily wages in the Block Developoment and Panchayat Office, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, and, later on pursuant to the judgment dated 9.11.1992 passed by this Court, the Government of Haryana created two posts, and, regularized the services of the husband of the respondent herein on the said post w.e.f. November 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The respondent being entitled for the benefit of family pension and other pensionary benefits, raised her claim but since the said benefits were not extended to her, thereupon she instituted CWP No. 22956 of 2021 before this Court. Vide order dated 16.5.2024, the said petition was disposed by this Court but in terms of the order dated 7.3.2024 passed in CWP-8306-2015. The order dated 16.5.2024 passed by this Court, becomes extracted hereinafter.

“Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the question of law raised in the present petition qua whether the employees of the Panchayat Samiti are entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits, has already been settled by this Court while passing order in CWP No 8306 of 2015 titled as Daya Rani versus State of haryana and others, decided on 7.3.2024 and the present petition be also disposed of in the same terms and conditions.

Learned State counsel has not been able to rebut the same that as per the judgment of the Daya Rani’s case (supra), the employees of the Panchayat Samiti have been held entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits.

Keeping in view the above, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of Daya Rani’s case (supra)”

3. Since the order dated 16.5.2024 remained purportedly uncomplied, thereby the respondent herein preferred COCP No. 3663 of 2024, before this Court, with a prayer therein to intiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thus on account of the appellants herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the order (supra) passed by this Court. It has been further alleged therein, that even after the passing of the order dated 16.5.2024, the respondents concerned have not complied with the directions of this Court, which amounts to wilful disobedience on their part.

4. The learned Contempt Court concerned, vide order dated

30.9.2024, passed the hereinafter order upon the COCP (supra).

“Considering the fact that directions to consider the claim of the petitioner was passed on 16.05.2024, a period of more than 4 months has gone by. In case, the compliance report is not filed within the aforesaid stipulated period, the officer concerned shall appear before the Court through video conferencing and would reimburse litigation cost to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from his/her own pocket. ”

5. The order (supra), passed by the learned Single Judge (Contempt Court) has caused pain to the appellants herein and has led them to file thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.

6. In pursuance to the said order, the appellants filed a status report, thus detailing thereins that against the order dated 16.5.2024, an LPA vide Diary No. U-10328907 dated 23.10.2024 (LPA No. 2668 of

2024) has been filed which is pending adjudication.

Submissions of the l