Tribune Information Service
Chandigarh, March 2
A 12 months after the motion of retiring assistant professors serving within the Authorities School of Artwork and Authorities School of Structure in Chandigarh on the age of 60 was put aside, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket at the moment imposed Rs20,000 prices on the UT Administration and different candidates. They had been in search of extension of time for implementing the Excessive Court docket judgment.
Taking over the applying filed within the earlier determined case of Dr Jogender Pal Singh and different petitioners towards the Union of India and different respondents, the Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma noticed that the prayer was for extension “within the mild of the truth that the SLP, most popular by the applicant-respondent, had been withdrawn on December 15 final 12 months, and now implementation of the judgment is taking time”.
The Bench noticed that senior counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners dropped at the court docket’s discover, throughout the course of listening to, an order dated February 28 handed by the Secretary, Technical Schooling, Chandigarh Administration. A rider had been put that petitioner Dr Rajesh Kumar Sharma would proceed in service past the age of retirement dated February 28 until the time “no closing choice is taken by the Central Authorities on this subject”.
The Bench added that this, in its thought of view, was clearly towards the mandate of the court docket order and opposite to the very spirit of the current utility for extension of time. “This we are saying as on the one hand, an effort has been made for in search of extension of time for implementing the judgment, whereas on the opposite, qua non-applicant/petitioner Dr Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the implementation is partial and that too with a rider which has no connection to do with the prayer made on this utility for extension of time”.
The Bench added that this apparently amounted to non-compliance of the court docket orders. Because the contempt petition was already pending earlier than the Excessive Court docket and listed for consideration on March 3, it could not go additional orders on this regard, the Bench added.
“It’s obvious that the competent authority would have taken a choice to implement the judgment handed by this court docket previous to the precise withdrawal of the SLP, which was pending earlier than the Supreme Court docket. We, due to this fact, don’t discover any grounds for extending the time for implementation of the judgment, particularly when greater than two months have handed because the withdrawal of the SLP and there has not been efficient steps taken to present impact thereto. The matter is being tossed from one division to the opposite with out a lot headway,” the Bench concluded.
Senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with counsel Arjun Pratap Atma Ram appeared for the non-applicants-petitioners, whereas Arun Gosain appeared for non-applicants/respondents-Union of India.
What the bench noticed
- The Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma noticed that the prayer was for extension “within the mild of the truth that the SLP, most popular by the applicant-respondent, had been withdrawn on December 15 final 12 months, and now implementation of the judgment is taking time”.
- The Bench noticed that senior counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners dropped at the court docket’s discover an order dated February 28 handed by the Secretary, Technical Schooling, UT. A rider had been put that petitioner Dr Rajesh Kumar Sharma would proceed in service past the age of retirement dated February 28 until the time “no closing choice is taken by the Central Authorities on this subject”.
- The Bench added that this was clearly towards the mandate of the court docket order and opposite to the very spirit of the current utility for extension of time.
