✦ Himachal Pradesh High Court · 14 Dec 2012

Pratap Chand v. Office Ghangret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P

SHIMLA. COPC No. 634 of 2012RAJIV SHARMA

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Shri Deepak Shanan, Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Shri J.R. Katwal, District Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (cid:133)(cid:133) Respondents/ Contemnors Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G., with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Complaint is that the judgment, dated 20.12.2011 has not been complied with. The issue pertains to conferment of daily wager status to Part Time Revenue Chowkidar. It is seen from the affidavit that the petitioner has been granted the status of daily wage Chowkidar w.e.f. 27.02.2004. But, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consequential benefits have not been disbursed to the petitioner. The consequential benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner positively within a period of one month 2 from today. Subject to the above, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Authenticated petitioner communication to the Deputy Commissioner. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 14, 2012 (bhupender/kalpana)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 14 Dec 2012. The bench was RAJIV SHARMA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Himachal Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. SHIMLA. COPC No. 634 of 2012). ← Search more judgments