AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Writ Court in CWP-583-2025, titled as ‘Pratap Bahadur vs. State of Punjab and others’. The decision dated 14.01.2025 reads thus:-
“1.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not being given the benefit of judgment in CWP-2225 of 2018 titled 'Satpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another and connected cases, decided on 27.08.2024 and the petitioner will be satisfied at this stage, in case, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the said judgment by passing appropriate speaking order in a time bound manner as the the petitioner has already been raised the said issue in the legal notice dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-11), which is still pending consideration with the respondents.
2.Notice of motion.
3.Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and submits that in case, the legal notice dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-11) has been received in the office of the concerned authorities and the same is still pending consideration with the authorities concerned, the same will be decided by the competent authority within a period of 08 weeks from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order by passing an appropriate speaking order. Learned counsel further submits that in case, it is found feasible to accept the claim of the petitioner, the same will be accepted, otherwise due reasons will be mentioned for not accepting the claim of the petitioner in the speaking order to be passed and the said order will be conveyed to the petitioner for his information and necessary action.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.
5.Ordered accordingly.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in deference to the aforesaid order, the Sub Divisional Engineer has passed an order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby, the claim of the petitioner has been accepted. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed with the concurrence of the Deputy Director (Administration), Water Supply and Sanitation, Head Office, Patiala. The operative part of the said order reads thus:-
“Sh Partap Bahadur is working as MCC and is being paid the wages as per DC rate admissible by the Government. Against the judgement dated 27.08.2024, a LPA bearing no.279/2025, titled as ‘State of Punjab & others VS Satpal Singh’ has been filed which is reserved for orders by the Hon’ble High Court on 26.02.2025. Since no stay order has been granted in the said LPA, nor the order in Satpal’s case has been set aside, as such Partap Bahadur is granted Equal pay Equal Work wages in view of the judgment of Satpal Singh. The said benefit is being granted subject to the decision of LPA bearing No. 279 of 2025. In case the LPA is allowed and decided in favor of the appellant, the department reserves its right to review and re-call the speaking order. As such, in view of the facts of the case aforementioned, the necessary speaking order has been passed. This issues with the concurrence of Deputy Director (admn.), Water Supply & Sanitation, Head office, Patiala, received vide E-office file No.797045 dated 20-05-2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, though the claim of the petitioner has been accepted, but the said order has not been implemented yet, as the financial relief ensuing therefrom has not been granted to the petitioner.
On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from the order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) that any direction was issued to the respondent concerned, to implement the order in a time bound manner. He concedes that except for the observations contained in para 3 of the aforesaid order, there is no other direction of such nature, passed in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, prima facie no cause of action has been made out to warrant initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Resultantly, the present petition, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.