Malkiyat Singh v. Deepak Rula
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Therefore, in view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as available to him, in…
Judgment
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): Compliance affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner stands considered by the competent authority vide order dated 13.08.2026, whereby petitioner has been granted work charge status on completion of 7 years’ service w.e.f. 01.01.2013 on notional basis as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court on 06.02.2025 in Surajmani’s case and further pay fixation order also stands issued. As such, the judgment in CWP No.1349/2026, dated 24.02.2026, has duly been 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 . ( 2026:HHC:36931 ) complied with by the respondent as well as the order passed in the present petition on 04.08.2026.
#2. Therefore, in view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as available to him, in accordance with law, if he still remains aggrieved. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge September 01, 2026 (reena)
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.