IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 108 Jatinder Kumar Simran dhindsa, (Shaheed Bhagar Singh Nagar) CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA order dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure P Court in CWP others”, whereby it has been direc COCP-3033-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3033 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision : Jatinder Kumar Versus Simran dhindsa, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nawanshahar (Shaheed Bhagar Singh Nagar) CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7373-2002 titled as “Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others”, whereby it has been directed as follows : “In this view of the matter when the petitioner had remained posted as a Cashier and was so upgraded with effect from July 21, 1997, then it is too late in the day for the respondents to claim that the petitioner was still to be treated a liable to be transferred on that basis. The respondents cannot be heard to make the aforesaid claim in view of the documents referred to above. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed., Order Annexure P/10 is quashed. It is further directed that the respondent would fix the entitlement of the petitioner as a cashier. However, the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3033 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-16.04.2026 …..Petitioner Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nawanshahar …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of 1) passed by a Division Bench of this 2002 titled as “Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and ted as follows :- “In this view of the matter when the petitioner had remained posted as a Cashier and was so upgraded with effect from July 21, 1997, then it is too late in the day for the respondents to claim that the petitioner was still to be treated as a Clerk and was liable to be transferred on that basis. The respondents cannot be heard to make the aforesaid claim in view of the documents referred to above. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed., Order Annexure P/10 is quashed. It is her directed that the respondent would fix the entitlement of the petitioner as a cashier. However, the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.17 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioner that even though there was a categoric direction that the duties of Cashier be taken from the petitioner, however, the petitioner is being forced to work as a Cler above said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and refers to the submissions made in para Nos.11 and 12 of the Short Reply dated 22.8.2025, filed by way of affidavit of Shri Muni Officer, Municipal Council, Nawanshahr, which reads as follows : COCP-3033-2025 (O & M) respondents would be at liberty to post the petitioner on any post which is equivalent to the post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay allowances.” At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though there was a categoric direction that the duties of Cashier be taken from the petitioner, however, the petitioner is being forced to work as a Clerk. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly controverts the above said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and refers to the submissions made in para Nos.11 and 12 of the Short Reply dated 22.8.2025, filed by way of affidavit of Shri Muni Officer, Municipal Council, Nawanshahr, which reads as follows : “11. That vide letter (Annexure P assigned to the petitioner has been changed in the Property Tax/Rent Recovery Branch, but his post is that of Cashier only and there is no deduction in his pay and allowances. There is no violation of the judgment (Annexure P-1) as the duty which has been assigned to the petitioner is that of post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances. As mentione been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure R him on 01.07.2025. 12. That it is also worth mentioning that no other Cashier has been appointed in place of petitioner which further clears that only the duty assigned to the petitioner has been changed in other branch, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances of cashier. Therefore, there is no violation and 2 respondents would be at liberty to post the petitioner on any post which is equivalent to the post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though there was a categoric direction that the duties of Cashier be taken from the petitioner, however, the petitioner is being forced Learned counsel for the respondent strongly controverts the above said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and refers to the submissions made in para Nos.11 and 12 of the Short Reply dated 22.8.2025, filed by way of affidavit of Shri Munish Kumar, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nawanshahr, which reads as follows :- That vide letter (Annexure P-6) only duty assigned to the petitioner has been changed in the Property Tax/Rent Recovery Branch, but his post is and there is no deduction in his pay and allowances. There is no violation of the 1) as the duty which has been assigned to the petitioner is that of post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances. As mentioned above, the same has also been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure R-1) and same was received by That it is also worth mentioning that no other Cashier has been appointed in place of petitioner h further clears that only the duty assigned to the petitioner has been changed in other branch, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances of cashier. Therefore, there is no violation and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.17 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the petitioner is that of Cashier only. The petitioner did not report on duty and had sent leave on the email address of the Municipal Council, Nawanshahr. The petitioner had even locked the room, which was assigned to the Assistant Municipal Engineer and Superintendent and took the keys along with him while he remained away from duty. It is further submitted that the operative part of the Writ respondents had been granted liberty to post the petitioner on any post which is equivalent to the post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances. It is submitted that the petitioner is wo Cashier and drawing the emoluments payable to the post of Cashier, therefore, there is no violation of the Writ Court order dated 18.11.2003. learned counsel for the responde dismissed. April 16, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable COCP-3033-2025 (O & M) disobedience of the directions and orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in judgment (Annexure P It is further categorically submitted that the duty assigned to the petitioner is that of Cashier only. The petitioner did not report on duty and had sent leave on the email address of the Municipal Council, Nawanshahr. The petitioner had even locked the room, which was assigned to the Assistant Municipal Engineer and Superintendent and took the keys along with him while he remained away from duty. It is further submitted that the operative part of the Writ Court order dated 18.11.2003 shows that respondents had been granted liberty to post the petitioner on any post which is equivalent to the post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances. It is submitted that the petitioner is wo Cashier and drawing the emoluments payable to the post of Cashier, therefore, there is no violation of the Writ Court order dated 18.11.2003. Heard. In view of the above said facts and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, the present contempt petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 disobedience of the directions and orders passed by is Hon'ble Court in judgment (Annexure P-1).” It is further categorically submitted that the duty assigned to the petitioner is that of Cashier only. The petitioner did not report on duty and had sent leave on the email address of the Municipal Council, Nawanshahr. The petitioner had even locked the room, which was assigned to the Assistant Municipal Engineer and Superintendent and took the keys along with him while he remained away from duty. It is further submitted Court order dated 18.11.2003 shows that respondents had been granted liberty to post the petitioner on any post which is equivalent to the post of Cashier, without affecting his status and his pay and allowances. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Cashier and drawing the emoluments payable to the post of Cashier, therefore, there is no violation of the Writ Court order dated 18.11.2003. In view of the above said facts and the submissions made by nt, the present contempt petition stands Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.17 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document