COCP No.3713 of 202 IN TH 150 GARGI Vs ARUN KUMAR CORAM: HON' Present: Mr. for th Mr. M for re Mr. D for re HARKESH MAN 1. By w Courts Act, 1971 are sought to be in compliance of ord 2016. The relevan set reliev Hon' Punj work petiti 2. Lear though made to jo 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No. Date of De MAR GUPTA AND ANR ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Dadwal, Asstt. A.G., Ha for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed und , 1971 read with Article 215 of the C to be initiated against the respondents of order dated 23.01.2019 passed by elevant portion thereof is extracted her “The writ petition is allowed an aside and the petitioners shall c elieved by another set of contractual on'ble the Supreme Court in a case Punjab and others, 2007 (13) SCC 2 ork and conduct is satisfactory. H etitioner can be replaced on joining of Learned counsel for the petitioner e to join in pursuance of the order dat UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH P No.3713 of 2024 (O&M) of Decision: 23.01.2025 ......Petitioner ....Respondents ESH MANUJA G., Haryana ed under Section 12 of the Contempt o the Constitution of India, proceeding dents on account of alleged willful non sed by this Court in CWP No.25703 o ted hereunder:- d and order dated 28.11.2016 (P-16) ll continue to work and shall not tual employees, in view of judgment ase of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State C 292, subject to the condition that t . However, it is made clear that t ng of regularly selected candidate.” tioner submits that the petitioner wa er dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Wr 1 empt of eedings ful non- 5703 of 16) is not be ent of tate of at the at the ner was the Writ MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.3713 of 202 Court, however, n of the direction is 3. On t submits that the 12.06.2019, how such circumstance 4. I hav paper book. 5. Perus though the petitio but never came to by the petitioner b 6. In vi to any willful no passed by the Wri 7. Rule January 23, 202 Atik Whe Whe 2024 (O&M) ever, not made to join any work, thus, tion issued by this Court. On the other hand, learned couns t the petitioner in terms of order pas , however, worked only for 04 days stances, there was no non-compliance I have heard learned counsel for th Perusal of short reply filed on beha petitioner joined on 12.06.2019; havin ame to the office again. The aforesaid ioner by way of filing replication. In view of aforesaid position, no find ful non-compliance on the part of th he Writ Court. Consequently, the prese Rule stands discharged. (HA , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/N Whether reportable Yes/N , thus, there was willful non-complianc counsel representing respondent No er passed by the Writ Court joined days and never returned thereafter. I liance on the part of the respondents. for the parties and gone through th behalf of respondent No.2 shows th ; having attended the office for 04 day resaid averments were nowhere rebutte no finding can be recorded with respe t of the respondents towards the ord e present petition is dismissed. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2 pliance nt No.2 on after. In ents. ugh the ws that 04 days, rebutted respect e order MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.27 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment