IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 110 Darshan Singh Brar and others S. Gurpreet Singh Khaira, IAS, Director, Department of Rural Development and Panhayats, Punjab Forest Complex, Sector 68, Mohali CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 23.5.2022 Court in CWP State of Punjab and another” whereby the petition was disposed of with the following observations/directions : COCP-3430-2023 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3430 of 2023 Date of decision : Darshan Singh Brar and others Versus Gurpreet Singh Khaira, IAS, Director, Department of Rural Development and Panhayats, Punjab Forest Complex, Sector 68, CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Mehak Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Gagan Pradeep S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 23.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co Court in CWP-8152-2019 titled as “Darshan Singh Brar and others vs. State of Punjab and another” whereby the petition was disposed of with the following observations/directions : “….Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner(s) as raised in these petitions, is allowed. The total length of service, which the petitioner(s) have rendered, be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits subject to the deposit of contribution by the petitioner(s) for the period it was not 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3430 of 2023 (O & M) Date of decision :-24.09.2025 …..Petitioners Gurpreet Singh Khaira, IAS, Director, Department of Rural Development and Panhayats, Punjab Forest Complex, Sector 68, …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Mehak Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Gagan Pradeep S. Bal, Advocate Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab. Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Darshan Singh Brar and others vs. State of Punjab and another” whereby the petition was disposed of with the following observations/directions :- Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner(s) as raised in these petitions, is allowed. The total length of service, which the petitioner(s) have rendered, be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary t to the deposit of contribution by the petitioner(s) for the period it was not VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.26 09.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the order dated 23.5.2022 (Annexure P alleged, the respondent titled as “Director Department of Rural Develop Punjab Sector 62 Mohali and another vs. Darshan Singh Brar and others”, which has been clubbed with the main titled as “The Panchayat Samiti Bathinda and others vs. Sukhdev Singh and others” 23.5.2022 (Annexure P dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the connected LPA taken on record. the above said facts, the present contempt petition may be disposed of, however with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same subject to decision in the above said LPA. made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt COCP-3430-2023 (O & M) deposited, along with interest. Keeping in view the undertaking of the petitioner(s) recorded hereinbefore. let the pensionary benefits of the petitioner(s) be revised. It is m arrears, if any, will only be admissible to the petitioner(s) for a period of 3 years and 2 months from the date of filing of the writ petition and not prior to that. Let this order be complied with within 3 months from the receipt of a Learned counsel for the respondent submits that against the order dated 23.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) of which the contempt is alleged, the respondent-State has preferred an LPA No.24 of 2025 titled as “Director Department of Rural Develop Punjab Sector 62 Mohali and another vs. Darshan Singh Brar and , which has been clubbed with the main titled as “The Panchayat Samiti Bathinda and others vs. Sukhdev Singh and others”, in which stay of operati 23.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) has been granted. Copy of the said order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the connected LPA-1125-2019 is handed over in the Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above said facts, the present contempt petition may be disposed of, however with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same subject to decision in the above said LPA. In view of the facts noted above and the submiss made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt 2 deposited, along with interest. Keeping in view the undertaking of the petitioner(s) recorded hereinbefore. let the pensionary benefits of the petitioner(s) be revised. It is made clear that the arrears, if any, will only be admissible to the petitioner(s) for a period of 3 years and 2 months from the date of filing of the writ petition and not Let this order be complied with within 3 months from the receipt of a copy of the same….” Learned counsel for the respondent submits that against 1) of which the contempt is State has preferred an LPA No.24 of 2025 titled as “Director Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab Sector 62 Mohali and another vs. Darshan Singh Brar and , which has been clubbed with the main LPA No.1125 of 2019 titled as “The Panchayat Samiti Bathinda and others vs. Sukhdev , in which stay of operation of the order dated 1) has been granted. Copy of the said order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 2019 is handed over in the Court, which is itioner submits that in view of the above said facts, the present contempt petition may be disposed of, however with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same subject In view of the facts noted above and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.26 09.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petition is same subject to decision in the above said LPA. September Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-3430-2023 (O & M) petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same subject to decision in the above said LPA. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall st September 24, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 with liberty to the petitioners to revive the same subject to decision in the above said LPA. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.26 09.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document