AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant writ petition has been listed in the supplementary cause list.
Neither Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.1 is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case.
Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 1071 of 2009, whereby the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No.1 has been allowed and the order of dismissal dated 5.12.2008 has been quashed.
Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in the instant writ petition. He submits that opposite party No.1 has filed a contempt petition, bearing No. 168 of 2011, before the State Public Services Tribunal for compliance of the judgment and order dated 1.9.2010, which is fixed for hearing today. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the proceedings of contempt petition be stayed.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to stay the proceedings of contempt petition pending before the Tribunal.
However, we provide that in case the petitioner moves an application for adjournment before the Tribunal, it is expected that the Tribunal will adjourn the hearing of contempt petition No. 168 of 2011 and fix it sometimes in the month of March, 2012.
List the matter in the next week. It is clarified that the parties will come prepared for final hearing on the next date of listing.