IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 105 Lal Chand and another Kanwar Lal, DGM CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) for violating co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP vide order dated 30.8.2024, the respondents have been directed by this Court to consider t submitted that despite the clear direction of this Court, no action has been taken thereupon. 30.8.2024 (Annexure P COCP-1662-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1662 of 2025 Date of decision : Lal Chand and another Versus Kanwar Lal, DGM (HRD), Punjab & Sind Bank and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed the present contempt petition for violating the order dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure P ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-25000 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 30.8.2024, the respondents have been directed by this Court to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. It is submitted that despite the clear direction of this Court, no action has been taken thereupon. Heard. The directions of this Court contained in the order dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure P-1) are as follows : “xxx xxx xxx 10. Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, at this stage, submits that respondents may be directed to 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1662 of 2025 Date of decision :-02.04.2025 …..Petitioners (HRD), Punjab & Sind Bank and another …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate The petitioners have filed the present contempt petition the order dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by a 25000-2014. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 30.8.2024, the respondents have been directed by this he case of the petitioners for regularization. It is submitted that despite the clear direction of this Court, no action has The directions of this Court contained in the order dated :- Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, at this stage, submits that respondents may be directed to VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the said order to the respondents vide representation dated 22.9.2024 (Annexure P petition dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P petitioners to the respondents; upon which the reply dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P service records, mode of appointment, claim against available sanctioned post, if any etc. were sought from the petitioners. Vide representation dated 23.1.2025 (Annexure P stated to have been supplied by the petitioners to th vide order dated 30.8.2024 the respondents had only been that they no further orders are required to be April 02, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-1662-2025 (O & M) consider them for regularization. Their case is not considered because of pendency of the present petition. 11. The petitioners are working with respondent-bank for quite long time, thus, bank may consider their case for regularization in accordance with law. xxx xxx xxx In pursuance thereto, the petitioners had supplied a copy of the said order to the respondents vide representation dated 9.2024 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, advance notice of contempt petition dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P petitioners to the respondents; upon which the reply dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) was received, wherein, relevant documents includi service records, mode of appointment, claim against available sanctioned post, if any etc. were sought from the petitioners. Vide representation dated 23.1.2025 (Annexure P stated to have been supplied by the petitioners to th Keeping in view the above said facts vide order dated 30.8.2024 the respondents had only been that they “may consider” the case of the petitioners for regularization o further orders are required to be passed in the matter. The present petition stands disposed of Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Reportable Yes / No 2 consider them for regularization. Their case is not considered because of pendency of the present The petitioners are working with the bank for quite long time, thus, bank may consider their case for regularization in thereto, the petitioners had supplied a copy of the said order to the respondents vide representation dated 2). Thereafter, advance notice of contempt petition dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) was served by the petitioners to the respondents; upon which the reply dated 29.12.2024 relevant documents including service records, mode of appointment, claim against available sanctioned post, if any etc. were sought from the petitioners. Vide representation dated 23.1.2025 (Annexure P-6) the said documents are stated to have been supplied by the petitioners to the respondents. Keeping in view the above said facts, as also the fact that vide order dated 30.8.2024 the respondents had only been directed the case of the petitioners for regularization, passed in the matter. disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document