COCP-2142-2025 COCP-2688-2025 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. COCP-2142 Sukhwinder Pal Singh and Others Puneet Kumar Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another 2. COCP-2688 Tarsem Lal Ramesh Krishnamurthi, Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sylvester Stephen, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in COCP for respondent No.2 (in COCP Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for for respondent No.2 (in COCP VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 1. The i Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) willful disobedience of order dated 12.0 CWP-25037-2022 titled as “Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others”. 2025 and 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Date of Decision : 0 2142-2025 (O&M) Sukhwinder Pal Singh and Others VERSUS Puneet Kumar Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another 2688-2025 (O&M) VERSUS Ramesh Krishnamurthi, Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL None for the petitioners. Mr. Sylvester Stephen, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in COCP-2142 for respondent No.2 (in COCP-2688 Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate respondent No.1 (in COCP-2688 for respondent No.2 (in COCP-2142 -.- VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) The instant petitions have been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) willful disobedience of order dated 12.03.2025 passed by 2022 titled as “Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Another Vs. State of Punjab -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.07.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents ....Petitioner ....Respondents VIKRAM AGGARWAL 2142-2025) 2688-2025) 2688-2025) 2142-2025) been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) alleging .2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in 2022 titled as “Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Another Vs. State of Punjab been preferred under Section 12 of the alleging ordinate Bench in 2022 titled as “Harjinder Singh Dhillon and Another Vs. State of Punjab TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.11 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2142-2025 COCP-2688-2025 2. Respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferenc that non-appearance of counsel for respondent No.1 on the last date was unintentional and 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that directions issued vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in CWP (including CWP payment orders have been issued. 4. Tha Court and the contempt petitions are disposed of on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. However, if some grievance still subsists, the petitioners would liberty to move an application for revival 6. Rule is discharged. July 8, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 and 2025 Respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferenc appearance of counsel for respondent No.1 on the last date was tentional and bona fide. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that directions issued vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed in CWP-30839 (including CWP-1277 of 2025) have been complied with and fresh pension payment orders have been issued. That being so, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court and the contempt petitions are disposed of on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents. However, if some grievance still subsists, the petitioners would liberty to move an application for revival of the contempt petition Rule is discharged. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- Respondent No.1 has appeared through video conference and submits appearance of counsel for respondent No.1 on the last date was Learned counsel for the respondents submit that directions issued vide 30839-2024 and other connected case 1277 of 2025) have been complied with and fresh pension no further orders are required to be passed by this Court and the contempt petitions are disposed of on the basis of the statement However, if some grievance still subsists, the petitioners would be at of the contempt petition(s). (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE submits appearance of counsel for respondent No.1 on the last date was Learned counsel for the respondents submit that directions issued vide 2024 and other connected case 1277 of 2025) have been complied with and fresh pension no further orders are required to be passed by this Court and the contempt petitions are disposed of on the basis of the statement be at TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.11 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document