IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1943-2026(O&M) Date of decision:-17.07.2026 Shri Mukul Kumar ...Appellant Versus B.B. Gupta ...Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present :- Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocate for the appellant. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL) CM-4722-LPA-2026 1. For the reasons given in the application, which is supported with an affidavit of Sh. Anish Yadav, Managing Director, HAFED, same is allowed. 2. Delay of 50 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. LPA-1943-2026(O&M) 3. This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Clause X of Letters Patent, challenging orders dated 21.04.2026 as well as 29.05.2026 passed by the contempt Court whereby cost of Rs.1 BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. lakh has been imposed with a direction to recover it from the salary of the appellant. 4. Mr. Kaushik, counsel for the appellant submits that writ petition filed by respondent was accepted by the learned Single Bench vide judgment dated 07.03.2025 and the following direction was passed: “30. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, impugned order dated 06.09.1994 (Annexure P/8) is set aside. The petitioner will be deemed to be in service for all intent and purposes till he attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner will be given all the consequential benefits. The back wages, for which the petitioner became entitled for, upon reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, will be limited to only 50%. Apart from this, the petitioner is held entitled for the retiral benefits for which the petitioner became entitled after his retirement, the same will also be given to the petitioner along with arrears. 31. No other argument has been raised. 32. Let the present order be complied with within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 33. Present petition is allowed in above terms.” 5. Counsel submits that the order passed by the writ Court was challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-1866-2025), which was registered on 03.07.2025 and notice was issued to the respondent on 18.07.2025 in the main appeal as well as in application for condonation of delay. Counsel states that as the respondent instituted a contempt petition, steps were taken to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Bench and payment due to the respondent was disbursed pursuant to an office order dated 04.05.2026. He has made a reference to the compliance BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. affidavits appended at Annexure P3, collectively, to take a categoric stand that the direction of the writ Court has been complied with, subject to the decision of the LPA. Counsel urges that by virtue of an interim order, contempt Court directed that in the event petitioner failed to file a compliance affidavit, cost of Rs.1 lakh shall be imposed. He states that before the deferred date, direction passed by the writ Court had been duly complied with and compliance affidavit was produced, but contempt Court imposed the cost and directed it to be deducted from appellant’s salary. He asserts that cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the contempt Court has been duly deposited and contempt petition has been disposed of on 29.05.2026. 6. Counsel asserts that the direction passed by the High Court has been duly complied with. There was no intention to delay the compliance with the order. He submits that the delay occurred as the petitioner had preferred an LPA in which notice has been issued. It is his assertion that the contempt Court did not consider the above factual position and erred in imposing a cost of Rs.1 lakh with a direction to recover it from the salary of the appellant. 7. We have heard counsel for the appellant and considered his submissions. We do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. 8. Conceded position is that an order of the writ Court has been complied with, although Letters Patent Appeal is still pending. Even cost BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. imposed by the Court has been deposited and contempt has been purged. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the direction for recovery of cost from the salary of the appellant is not called for. 9. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. Direction passed by the contempt Court to recover the cost from the salary of the appellant is ordered to be set aside. 10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Brij Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.