IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.10.2010 COCP No.1924 of 2010 (O&M) Sohan Singh Sodhi ...Petitioner Versus Shri K.D.Chaudari ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.1746 of 2010, wherein the petitioner sought decision on his representation Annexure P-8 dated 13.06.2008. The primary grievance in the representation was against Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, which is evident from the averments made in Para Nos.1 to 15. It was only in Para No.17, the petitioner made a reference that one Daljit Singh, Junior Engineer, retired in March or April, 2004 has also been allowed such like benefits by the PSEB. In terms of such direction, an order has been passed by the competent authority on 08.04.2010, copy of which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. The representation of the petitioner has not been accepted. It has been found that Ravinder Kumar Sharma was given deemed date of promotion in pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the present contempt petition, the sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has claimed deemed date of promotion vis-a- COCP No.1924 of 2010 (O&M) vis to the employees i.e. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Daljit Singh, whereas the Department has considered the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis Ravinder Kumar Sharma, but there is no consideration vis-à-vis Daljit Singh, therefore, the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. A perusal of the petition shows that Daljit Singh has filed a civil suit claiming promotion as Sub Station Operator. The said suit was decreed. Vide Annexure P-13, the Board’s second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 31.08.1992. In view of the above, it is apparent that Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma was given deemed date of promotion in terms of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Shri Daljit Singh has been given benefits in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court and affirmed by this Court. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. Consequently, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. 01.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2