SUKH LAL Vs. K G VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order which is alleged to have not been complied with by the respondents is dated 11.4.1996 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 15374 of 1994 Sukh Lal Dy. S.P. GRP, Hissar v. State of Haryana and another. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as follows :-

(2.) In terms of the above order, the order making petitioner Sukh Lal as junior to Dy. S.P. Pirthi Singh (respondent No. 3) was quashed. It was, however, made clear in the order that the authorities still might like to disturb the seniority of the petitioner vis a vis respondent No. 3 on any ground but that could be done only after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner Sukh Lal. It is not disputed before me that notice to show cause was given to petitioner Dy. S.P. Sukh Lal on 11.6.1996 and after reply on behalf of the petitioner was filed, he was given hearing on 8.10.1996. Prima facie satisfied with the reply of the petitioner Sukh Lal, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 30.11.1996 to Dy. S.P. Pirthi Singh stating therein why petitioner Sukh Lal not made senior to him as Dy. S.P. After the receipt of the reply, the petitioner Sukh Lal was declared senior to Dy. S.P. Pirthi Singh vide order dated 30.1.1997. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that order dated 11.4.1996 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 15374 of 1994 has been fully complied with.

(3.) At this stage Mr. Balhara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had been senior to Dy. S.P. Pirthi Singh throughout and was formally declared as senior to him, on 30.1.1997, the respondents have promoted Dy. S.P. Pirthi Singh as SP. He further submits that even in the reply, respondents have stated that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as SP w.e.f. 5.11.1996. I am afraid that the question of promotion of the petitioner to the post of SP cannot be dealt with in the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. In these proceedings I have only to examine as to whether the order dated 11.4.1996 has been complied with or not. Since that order has been complied with, I do not deem it necessary to proceed further into the matter. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised, with regard to his grievance for promotion to the post of SP from any retrospective date.