IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 102 Vijay Kumar Pankaj Agarwal, IAS, CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P Court in CWP Haryana a vide order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the State to the effect that petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the same will be considered and decided by respondent No.1 Secretary, School Education Department, by passing a speaking order COCP-1906-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1906 of 2025 Date of decision : Vijay Kumar Versus Pankaj Agarwal, IAS, Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by a co Court in CWP-535 of 2025 titled as “ Haryana and others”. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P- of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the State to the effect that “…in case any such representa petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the same will be considered and decided by respondent No.1 Secretary, School Education Department, by passing a speaking order 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1906 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-01.05.2025 …..Petitioner Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Laxman Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana. Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated ) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this titled as “Vijay Kumar vs. State of It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that -1) the petition was disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the State to “…in case any such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the same will be considered and decided by respondent No.1-Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, by passing a speaking order VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.03 15.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in accordance with law keeping in view orders dated 16.12.2024 and 30.01.2024, within three months of receiving the representation.” directed that in case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned s petitioner. 13.1.2025 (Annexure P representation dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P Chief Secretary, Govt. of H writ petition, however, order thereupon was passed by the Project Officer PGT is submitted that accordingly the order was not passed by the respondent within the stipulated period the petitioner is entitled for the costs of Rs.50,000/ 13.1.2025 (Annexure P respondent, who submits, on instructions from Mr. Karnail Singh, Assistant P.G.T 17.1.2025 (Annexure P Department original file in respect of the receiving is produced before this Court. A perusal thereof reveals office noting as per which representation of the petitioner was received on 30.1.2025. receiving of t COCP-1906-2025 (O & M) in accordance with law keeping in view orders dated 16.12.2024 and 30.01.2024, within three months of receiving the representation.” It is submitted that it was further directed that in case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/ petitioner. Learned counsel admits that in pursuance to order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-9) the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, who was respondent No.1 in the writ petition, however, order thereupon was passed by the Project PGT-II for the Director Secondary Education on 29.4.2025. is submitted that accordingly the order was not passed by the respondent within the stipulated period of three months, the petitioner is entitled for the costs of Rs.50,000/ 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-9). The said submission is controverted on behalf of respondent, who submits, on instructions from Mr. Karnail Singh, Assistant P.G.T-II O/o D.S.E., Panchkula that the representation dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P-10) was received in the respondent Department i.e. PGT-II Branch for execution original file in respect of the receiving is produced before this Court. A perusal thereof reveals office noting as per which representation of the petitioner was received on 30.1.2025. receiving of the representation dated 17.1.2025 is taken on record. 2 in accordance with law keeping in view the aforementioned office orders dated 16.12.2024 and 30.01.2024, within three months of It is submitted that it was further directed that in case the order is not passed within the stipulated hall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Learned counsel admits that in pursuance to order dated 9) the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P-10) to the Additional aryana, who was respondent No.1 in the writ petition, however, order thereupon was passed by the Project or the Director Secondary Education on 29.4.2025. It is submitted that accordingly the order was not passed by the of three months, and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the costs of Rs.50,000/- as per order dated ission is controverted on behalf of respondent, who submits, on instructions from Mr. Karnail Singh, II O/o D.S.E., Panchkula that the representation dated 10) was received in the respondent- ch for execution on 30.1.2025. The original file in respect of the receiving is produced before this Court. A perusal thereof reveals office noting as per which representation of the petitioner was received on 30.1.2025. A photocopy of the he representation dated 17.1.2025 is taken on record. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.03 15.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document proof of receiving with the petitioner. clear that petitioner is not entitled May 01, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable COCP-1906-2025 (O & M) Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there is no proof of receiving with the petitioner. In view of the above, no contempt is made out. clear that petitioner is not entitled to Rs.50,000/ The present petition stands dismissed Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there is no In view of the above, no contempt is made out. It is also to Rs.50,000/-. dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.03 15.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document