DYAL SINGH v. A VENU PRASAD & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the instant contempt petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further directions are required to be passed by this Court and that the contempt petition be disposed of. He further submits that in case, any grievance still subsists, the petitioner shall…
- Para 77. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the instant contempt petition is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE
Judgment
VIKRAM AGGARWAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Suneet Singh Deol, Advocate Mr. Suneet Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate for the respondents. VIKRAM AGGARWAL AGGARWAL, J.(Oral)
On 23.09.2025, the following order was passed:- On 23.09.2025, the following order was passed: RSA No.3402 of 2012 was decided on “RSA No.3402 of 2012 was decided on
27.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) and the following 27.10.2016 (Annexure P directions were issued:- e
The e respondents respondents respondents directed directed directed examine re-consider/re-examine appellant within a period of four months appellant within a period of four months today and grant today and grant time bound time bound promotion/increment and to refix pay and promotion/increment and to refix pay and pension and also pension and also to grant monetary to grant monetary benefits.
Respondents claim to have complied with the
Respondents claim to have complied with the said order by passing order dated 16.05.2017 said order by passing order dated (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order does not stand complied with and the the order does not stand complied with and the service book of the petitioner be summoned. service book of the petitioner be summoned. HIMANSHU 2025.12.04 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1441-2017 -2- Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the directions stand complied with. To put an end to the controversy, the respondents are directed to file an affidavit stating only as to whether the directions passed have been complied with, in their entirety or not. Adjourned to 01.12.2025.
Today, in compliance of the said order, reply by way of short affidavit of Ex. Balvir Singh Hari, Additional Superintending Engineer, City Division, Moga, has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit stated as under:- “ XX XX XX
That in compliance of the said order dated
23.09.2025 respondent re-examine the entire case of the petitioner and it is reaffirms that directions passed by in RSA-3402 of 2012 has been complied with in entirety and nothing is due to be paid.
That the earlier affidavit/reply dated
24.09.2019 & 11.10.2023 filed by PSPCL may kindly be consider part and parcel of this reply.”
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further directions are required to be passed by this Court and that the contempt petition be disposed of. He further submits that in case, any grievance still subsists, the petitioner shall avail all such remedies as shall be admissible in law. HIMANSHU 2025.12.04 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1441-2017 -3-
Operative part
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the instant contempt petition is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE
01.12.2025 himanshu Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No HIMANSHU 2025.12.04 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the instant contempt petition is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 01 Dec 2025. The bench was VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
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.