1- 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2418-2026 Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 SILKY SHARMA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus ALOK SHEKHAR IAS AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Parvesh Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioners (through VC) Dr. D. S. Lamba, Addl. A. G. Punjab and Mr. G. S. Fateh, Senior DAG, Punjab. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present contempt petition has been preferred by petitioners seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their intentional, willful, deliberate disobedience and non-implementation of order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14325 of 2025 titled as “Silky Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and others”. 2. Following order was passed by this Court:- 2. In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 21.03.2025, taking note of the aforesaid judgment, within a period of 6 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to them and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitioners shall be free to seek legal RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.31 09:53 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-2418-2026 -2- redress thereupon. 3. In compliance with order dated 19.05.2025, status report has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that representation dated 21.03.2025 filed by the petitioners has been decided order dated 09.02.2026, copy of which petitioners had also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-13. 4. Now, the sole grievance of learned counsel for the petitioners is that his representation has been wrongly dismissed with mala fide intention specially when similar benefits which petitioners had sought were duly awarded by respondents vide Annexure P-15 and Annexure P-6 passed by respondents on 24.03.2026 and 16.07.2025. It is submitted that similarly situated persons have been granted relief, dismissal of representation amounts to contempt. 5. The jurisdiction of contempt Court is limited, contempt Court cannot go into the merits of the case and decide the lis between the parties. It can only see as to whether directions given by this Court have been complied with or not. In the present case, directions were given vide order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) to decide the representation within a period of six months. Now, the representation has since been decided. However, petitioners claims that it has not been decided fairly and decided in a mala fide manner as similarly situated persons were granted relief sought by them, which has been sought by present petitioners. 6. I am afraid that this Court cannot go into the order passed by respondents dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-13). This needs to be settled by Court of competent jurisdiction and not by contempt Court. In these RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.31 09:53 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-2418-2026 -3- circumstances, present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to seek their legal remedies as available, in accordance with law. Petitioners shall also be free to seek damages or compensation for wrong dismissal of his claim in a discriminatory manner as being claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners in accordance with law.. 7. Present contempt petition is disposed in above terms. 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 28.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.31 09:53 I agree to specified portions of this document