KAMLA JOSHI & ANOTHER Vs. CHANDRA SINGH GWAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Kamla Joshi And Another
Chandra Singh Gwal
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioners allege in the present contempt petition that the respondent willfully disobeyed the Court's order dated 30.11.2012 passed in WPSS No. 968 of 2011, which reads as under:-
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment-dated 12.10.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 1181 of 2011 (S/S) "Rajeev Kala and ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors". They prayed that this petition may also be disposed of in the same terms.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms and observations in which Writ Petition no. 1181 of 2011 (S/S) "Rajeev Kala and ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors" was decided vide Court's order dated 12.10.2012."
(2.) It appears that the above writ petition (WPSS No. 968 of 2011) was disposed in the same terms and observations made by this Court in WPSS No. 1181 of 2011. The operative portion of this same reads as under:-
"Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment given by this Court in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, 2005 1 UPLBEC 6which is upheld by the Supreme Court.
Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents for last one year and since the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment given by this Court in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, 2005 1 UPLBEC 6, I dispose of the writ petition in terms of that judgment."
(3.) In the case of Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, 2005 1 UPLBEC 6, this Court passed the following order:-
"In the circumstances, the petitioner has been continuously serving in the L.T. Grade right from the dated 19.09.1990. As such in view of the above discussion rejection of the petitioner's representation relating to his seniority vide order dated 17.01.2003 is bad in law. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The mandamus is issued that the petitioner's services be treated to have been regularized in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.10.1990. The order dated 17.01.2003 (copy Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit) where by the representation of the petitioner was rejected is quashed. The petitioner's case for promotion in the lecturer grade shall be considered in the light of the observations given in the body of the judgment considering his due seniority. No order as to costs.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.