ISHWAR CHANDER AND ANOTHER v. SH ANURAG RASTOGI IAS AND OTHERS
COCP/2181/2024 · 2025-01-31
Harkesh Manuja
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63446 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63446 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
196
IN THE ISHWAR CHANDER AND ANOTHER
SH ANURAG RASTOGI IAS AND OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora,
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA Mr. C.G appears in-person and submits that vide order dated 25.01.2025, the benefit have been accorded in favour of the petitioners and the requisite amount in this regard shall be released to them within a period of two weeks from today followed by release of consequential retiral benefits in additional two weeks. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition. Dismissed as not pressed. Rule discharged. However, aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing of revival application. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 31.01.2025 Tejwinder
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:
ISHWAR CHANDER AND ANOTHER
Versus H ANURAG RASTOGI IAS AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the Mr. Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
Mr. C.G. Rajanikanthan, IAS, D.G., Treasury and Accounts person and submits that vide order dated 25.01.2025, the benefit have been accorded in favour of the petitioners and the requisite amount in this regard shall be released to them within a period of two om today followed by release of consequential retiral benefits in additional two weeks. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition. Dismissed as not pressed. Rule discharged. However, in case the needful is not done within the aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing of revival application. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2181-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 31, 2025
........Petitioners H ANURAG RASTOGI IAS AND OTHERS ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.
Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. , IAS, D.G., Treasury and Accounts person and submits that vide order dated 25.01.2025, the benefit have been accorded in favour of the petitioners and the requisite amount in this regard shall be released to them within a period of two om today followed by release of consequential retiral benefits in In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners ful is not done within the aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be of the contempt petition and in that eventuality, the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No (O&M) January 31, 2025
, IAS, D.G., Treasury and Accounts person and submits that vide order dated 25.01.2025, the benefit have been accorded in favour of the petitioners and the requisite amount in this regard shall be released to them within a period of two om today followed by release of consequential retiral benefits in In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners ful is not done within the aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be and in that eventuality, the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.02.03 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document