High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Kumar Gupta vs Anurag Rastogi on 28 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Gupta vs Anurag Rastogi on 28 January, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
              AT CHANDIGARH

                                              C.O.C.P. No. 1134 of 2008
                                              Date of Decision : January 28, 2009


Surinder Kumar Gupta
                                                                   .....Petitioner
                                  Versus
Anurag Rastogi
                                                                 .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :   None for the petitioner.

            Respondent in person with
            Mr. S.K. Hooda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana


T.P.S. MANN, J.

According to the petitioner, the respondent deliberately,

intentionally and willfully disobeyed the orders passed by a Division

Bench of this Court on 28.8.1998, whereby the respondent was directed to

consider and decide the representation dated 28.4.1998 submitted by the

petitioner within a period of three months.

Reply has been filed by the respondent today in the Court,

which is taken on record. It has been stated therein that order dated

28.8.1998 passed by this Court required two actions on the part of the

respondent, firstly, the respondent was to consider and decide the

representation dated 28.4.1998 and, secondly if the petitioner was found

entitled to the relief claimed by him, then to give him the arrears for a
C.O.C.P. No. 1134 of 2008 -2-

period of three years and two months. On telephonic instructions issued by

the respondent, District Education Officer, Karnal sent a copy of the pay

bill-cum-acquitance roll, as per which arrears amounting to Rs. 39,657/-

for 38 months had been paid to the petitioner on 15.7.1999. The

respondent, who is present in person states that the arrears aforementioned

were paid to the petitioner after considering and deciding his

representation dated 28.4.1998.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order dated

28.4.1998 passed by a Division Bench of this Court has not been complied

with by the respondent.

Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.





                                                      ( T.P.S. MANN )
January 28, 2009                                            JUDGE
satish