Nathu Ram v. Prof. Rama Arora
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Sep 2025
- Bench
- SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Outcome
Disposed of
application is disposed of by modifying the para No
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE
Judgment
Present : Mr. J.K.Ketarpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T., with Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018.
Vide order dated 12.09.2024, the following direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018:-
11. After having considered all the relevant aspects and submissions of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.6 lakh compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, would suffice. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within a period of 30 days, from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of the award i.e. 13.08.2009.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-548-2025 (O&M) -2-
The respondent filed review application i.e. RA-LP No.26 of 2025 in LPA No.1782 of 2018, whereby, the above referred to order dated
12.09.2024 was reviewed and modified by the Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 31.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said order dated
Operative part
31.07.2025 is reproduced as under:- “5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record and also considering the fact that the judgment dated 12.09.2024 was passed in the presence of learned counsel representing respondent No.2, it would not be appropriate for respondent No.2 to plead that he/she was not aware of the passing of the judgment. However, considering the fact that during pendency of the proceedings the applicant-respondent No.2 had already paid the compensation awarded vide judgment dated 12.09.2024 amounting to 6 lakh by way ₹ of cheque dated 19.02.2025 to the petitioner, the instant application is disposed of by modifying the para No.11 of the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed in LPA No. 1782 of 2018 to the extent as under:-
11. After having considered all the relevant aspects and submissions of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs. 6 lakh compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, would suffice. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within a period of 30 days, from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of this order i.e. 12.09.2024.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-548-2025 (O&M) -3-
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that order dated
12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018 has been complied with. It is further submitted that on 06.03.2025, respondent handed over a cheque No.673672 dated 19.02.2025, drawn on the State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs only) to learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the respondent has brought and handed over a cheque bearing No.532842 dated 26.08.2025, drawn on the State Bank of India, amounting to Rs.23,150/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner towards interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of passing of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in LPA-1782-2018, as clarified/modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the payment made to the petitioner and the compliance of aforesaid order dated
12.09.2024, which was modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025. He submits that order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782- 2018, as clarified/modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025, has been complied with.
Consequently, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-548-2025 (O&M) -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2025 and prays that liberty be granted to the petitioner to pursue further, after the decision of the SLP.
In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy as is available to him in accordance with law, after the decision of the SLP.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE
04.09.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 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: application is disposed of by modifying the para No
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Sep 2025. The bench was SUDEEPTI 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.