Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral):— By way of this petition, petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court dated 26.03.2014, in CWP No. 1857 of 2014, titled as Megh Ram Panatu v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The judgment which was passed by this Court in CWP No. 1857 of 2014 (supra), is appended with the petition as Annexure C-3 and the same reads as under:—
“Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned Advocate submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 272 of 2005 State of H.P. v. Madhvinder Sharma, decided on 22.12.2008.
2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the principles laid down by tis Court in the judgment dated 22.12.2008, as notice above, within a period of eight weeks from today, by passing a speaking order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has now been given benefits in terms of CWP No. 272 of 2005, which judgment finds mention in the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 1857 of 2014, however, the respondent-State, rather than granting the benefits to the petitioner as from the date when the same became due, has restricted the same up to three years as from the date of filing of the writ petition. This, as per learned Counsel for the petitioner, is willful disobedience of the Court order, as no such restriction was put by the State in the matter of persons similarly situated as the present petitioner, who were party in CWP No. 272 of 2005, to whom, as per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the benefits were given as from the date when the same became due. To put forth his point, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Office Order dated 18.08.2009, Annexure C-2 appended with the petition.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present petition is without any merit because it cannot be said that there was willful disobedience of Court orders by the respondents. He submits that the directions which were issued by this Court while disposing of CWP No. 1857 of 2014 were to consider the case of the present petitioner in terms of the judgment which was passed by this Court in CWP No. 272 of 2005 and in compliance thereto, the Authority concerned passed the appropriate orders, which stand appended with the present petition as Annexure C-4 and the authority in its wisdom restricted the benefits up to three years as from the date of filing of the writ petition in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1997) 11 SCC 13 : AIR (1998) SC, 2819.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1857 of 2014, decided on 26.03.2014, contempt of which is alleged by the present petitioner, in my considered view, this is not a case wherein it can be said that there is a willful disobedience of the Court order. May be persons similarly situated as the petitioner were granted monetary benefits as from the date when the same became due to them, however, in the absence of there being any positive direction issued by this Court in CWP No. 1857 of 2014 as to from which date benefits were to be given to the petitioner in case petitioner was found entitled for the same, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience of the Court order. However, if the petitioner is indeed aggrieved by the factum of restriction of the monetary allowance by the authority, then, it is open for the petitioner, as prayed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, to approach the Authority concerned, by way of a representation in this regard, within a period of four weeks from today. Alongwith with representation, the petitioner is at liberty to append documents to substantiate the fact that he is similarly situated as the respondent in CWP No. 272 of 2005 (supra). In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, then learned Additional Advocate General assures the Court that the same shall be decided by the Authorities concerned within a period of six weeks from the receipt thereof, in accordance with law and Rules, after according an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner.
5. The contempt petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Notice stands discharged.