COCP No. 2108 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 2108 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 2, 2009 Surinder Pal Singh ..Petitioner Versus Shri Suresh Kumar and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.A.P.Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the respondents. ,,, Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.)Oral) Respondents are present in court. Additional affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Irrigation and Power has been filed in court and the same is taken on the record. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid affidavit reads as follows:- “ That the deponent had filed a reply on 30.11.2009 approved by the office of Advocate General, Punjab, explaining the facts of the case whereby it was understanding of the Department of Irrigation that the orders of this Hon'ble Court of 15.12.2008 in CWP No.10441 of 2008 in which the Hon'ble Court has taken cognizance of an interim stay granted by the Hon'ble Court in SLP No.7166 of 2008, would merge with the order of 13.6.2008, disobedience of which has been alleged in the present contempt petition. That it is now given to understand that order of 15.12.2008 does not impinge upon the order of 13.6.2008 and the order of COCP No. 2108 of 2009 2 13.6.2008 is operative, therefore, the deponent has no issue in complying with this order and considering the petitioner for promotion in the next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is further submitted that in compliance of interim order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No.10441 of 2008, the name of the petitioner for promotion shall be considered in the next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to be convened after the vacation of the stay order granted by the Hon'ble Court on 30.11.2009. That the deponent submits an unconditional apology for the inconvenience that has been caused to the Hon'ble Court because of the understanding of the Department as explained above. The deponent regrets such an inconvenience.” The explanation and the unconditional apology submitted by the respondent No.1 is accepted. The order dated 30.11.2009 restraining the respondents from holding the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee scheduled to be held on 2.12.2009 is vacated. It is made clear that as per the undertaking given before this court, the name of the petitioner for promotion shall be considered in the ensuing meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to be convened. In view of the reply submitted by the counsel for the respondents, this court is not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. December 2, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE