Sandeep Sharma, J
COPC(T) No. 35 of 2020 & CMP(T) No. 1998 of 2020
1. By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, for
having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the direction contained in order dated 19.12.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal in OA(D) No. 424 of 2018 titled as Gurdarshan Singh Dadhwal vs. the State of H.P. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below, while
directing respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of law laid down by this Court in judgment dated 9.8.1979 in CWP No. 43 of
1979, Rup Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1980, SLJ, 348, also directed the respondents to expedite the enquiry initiated against the
petitioner and thereafter subject to outcome of the enquiry, consider the case of the petitioner, for promotion to the post of Head Master from the due
date alongwith all consequential benefits. Since no steps came to be taken by the respondents for implementation of the aforesaid order passed by
erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. During the pendency of the present petition, petitioner has filed CMP(T) No. 1998 of 2020, seeking permission to place on record copy of order
dated 31.8.2020, perusal whereof reveals that the petitioner stands exonerated in the departmental proceedings initiated against him, as such, his case
is now required to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master, from due date alongwith all consequential benefits in terms of the order in
question. CMP(T) No. 1998 of 2020 is allowed and document is taken on record.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, having perused aforesaid order vis-Ã -vis order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal, fairly states that consequential action pursuant to exoneration of the petitioner in the Departmental proceedings, shall be positively taken
within a period of two weeks, if not already taken.
4. Consequently, in view of fair stand taken by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no occasion to keep the present proceedings alive
and same are closed with a direction to the respondents, to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post in question, from due date, in
terms of order alleged to have been violated, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner shall be at liberty to get
the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action is taken against erring officials. Petition stands closed. Notices issued to the respondents
are discharged.
5. Since the petitioner is going to superannuate on 31.12.2020, this Court hopes and trusts that the needful in terms of orders alleged to have been
violated, shall be done positively within the time stipulated by this Court.
