Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11285 (PNJ)

DARSHANA v. Y.P. SINGHAL AND ANR

COCP/434/2015 · 2025-05-13

Nidhi Gupta

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

COCP-434 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 Smt. Darshana Sh. Y.P. Singhal and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Constitution of India, for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful, intentional and deliberate dated 11.09.2014 2013, titled as ‘ 2. vide order dated respondents to decide the legal notice dated 01.06.2014, within a period of 03 months from the date of certified copy of the said order. grievance of the petitioner that the said order has not been complied with till date. 434-2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP Date of Decision: Smt. Darshana Versus Sh. Y.P. Singhal and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Mamta Saini and Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocates for Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Constitution of India, for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful, intentional and deliberate 11.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court 2013, titled as ‘Smt. Darshana vs. State of Haryana and others Learned counsel for the petitioner, vide order dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure P-1), a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 01.06.2014, within a period of 03 months from the date of certified copy of the said order. grievance of the petitioner that the said order has not been complied with IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-434-2015 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Mamta Saini and Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocates for Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana. The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Sections 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of order 1) passed by this Court in CWP-18874- State of Haryana and others’. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that 1), a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 01.06.2014, within a period of 03 months from the date of certified copy of the said order. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the said order has not been complied with read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for initiation of contempt proceedings against the disobedience of order submits that 1), a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 01.06.2014, within a period of It was the grievance of the petitioner that the said order has not been complied with RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.16 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-434 3. service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of Compassionate Assistance Rules husband, namely, Sh. Randhir Singh (deceased ESI No. 949) along with interest @ 18% per annum. 4. said relief, the petitioner had also filed a Petition No. 184 Computer ID No. 30/2014 dated 04.07.2014 titled as ‘ General Public and others Act, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017, passe (Senior Division), Kurukshetra No. 446 of 2017 dated Randhir Singh, namely, Mamta Devi against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of Compassionate Assistance Rules 2006 Additional D 27.07.2023. 27.07.2023, taken on record. 5. has no instructions as to whether any Execution Petition has been filed by the petitioner or her LRs in pursuance to the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and 27.07.2023. 434-2015 -2- The petitioner was seeking the release of all consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of Compassionate Assistance Rules 2006, on account of death of her husband, namely, Sh. Randhir Singh (deceased ESI No. 949) along with interest @ 18% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that for the said relief, the petitioner had also filed a Petition No. 184 Computer ID No. 30/2014 dated 04.07.2014 titled as ‘ General Public and others’, under Section Act, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra. The appeal 446 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017 filed Randhir Singh, namely, Mamta Devi against the aforesaid judgment and dated 31.07.2017, who was also claiming all the consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of Compassionate Assistance Rules 2006, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023. Copies of the judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and 27.07.2023, handed over in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that has no instructions as to whether any Execution Petition has been filed by the petitioner or her LRs in pursuance to the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and 27.07.2023. The petitioner was seeking the release of all consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of 2006, on account of death of her husband, namely, Sh. Randhir Singh (deceased ESI No. 949) along with Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that for the said relief, the petitioner had also filed a Petition No. 184 of 2015 bearing Computer ID No. 30/2014 dated 04.07.2014 titled as ‘Darshana Devi vs. , under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and d by the learned Additional Civil Judge . The appeal bearing CIS (Civil App.) by the alleged second wife of Randhir Singh, namely, Mamta Devi against the aforesaid judgment and also claiming all the consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of , was dismissed by the learned vide judgment and decree dated Copies of the judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and handed over in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no instructions as to whether any Execution Petition has been filed by the petitioner or her LRs in pursuance to the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and 27.07.2023. Learned counsel for the The petitioner was seeking the release of all consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of 2006, on account of death of her husband, namely, Sh. Randhir Singh (deceased ESI No. 949) along with Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that for the of 2015 bearing vs. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and d by the learned Additional Civil Judge bearing CIS (Civil App.) by the alleged second wife of Randhir Singh, namely, Mamta Devi against the aforesaid judgment and also claiming all the consequential service benefits, i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, benefits of , was dismissed by the learned vide judgment and decree dated Copies of the judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2017 and handed over in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are she has no instructions as to whether any Execution Petition has been filed by the petitioner or her LRs in pursuance to the aforesaid judgments and Learned counsel for the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.16 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-434 petitioner has informed that during the pe petition, the petitioner herself has expired. 6. above, no cause survives in the present petition disposed of. 7. 8. 13.05.2025 rishu 434-2015 -3- petitioner has informed that during the pendency of the present contempt petition, the petitioner herself has expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in no cause survives in the present petition disposed of. Ordered accordingly. Rule stands discharged. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ndency of the present contempt Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the no cause survives in the present petition and the same may be ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No ndency of the present contempt view of the may be RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.16 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.