IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) COCP No. 2288 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 Rati Ram …Petitioner Versus Sh. Jitender Kumar, IAS, Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana, Shiksha Sadan …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Longia, DAG., Haryana. **** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) 1. By way of the instant contempt petition, the petitioner (Rati Ram) alleges willful disobedience of order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) vide which, the following directions were passed:- “3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact and contends that the impugned order has been inadvertently passed by the third respondent/appointing authority of the petitioner, who was working as Part Time Sweeper in the Department prior to regularization. The order shall be withdrawn within a week, and a fresh decision will be taken by the Director General, Secondary Education/second respondent, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months thereafter.” 2. Today on first call, this Court was of the prima facie view that the respondents have prima facie committed disobedience of the order since it was maintained that no speaking order has been passed nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. The hearing in the matter was deferred REKHA SHARMA 2025.05.15 05:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh COCP No. 2288 of 2025 -2- and learned counsel representing the State of Haryana was directed to seek instructions. 3. In the post lunch session, Sh. Pawan Kumar Longia, DAG., Haryana, has produced a copy of the order dated 29.11.2024 vide which the speaking order was duly passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In-fact, Sh. Pawan Kumar Longia, DAG., Haryana has also produced the record showing that the petitioner had duly appeared before the authorities on 28.10.2024. 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order has been complied with, he does not press the present revision petition. 5. That being so, the present contempt petition is dismissed as not having been pressed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE May 12, 2025 Rekha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No REKHA SHARMA 2025.05.15 05:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh