COCP No.460 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.460 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 27, 2009. Ranbir Singh, Secretary ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Mohamed Sahin & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri D.S. Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM No.20043-CII of 2009 Allowed subject to just exceptions. COCP No.460 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent-Society on 3.3.1997. However, his appeal challenging the aforesaid order was accepted vide order dated 11.9.2000 Annexure P-1 and the order of termination was set aside. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the meantime, respondent No.5 was promoted by the respondent-Society on 19.6.1997 illegally and he COCP No.460 of 2009 -: 2 :- challenged the aforesaid order which was also set aside vide order dated 11.9.2000 Annexure P-2 and it was ordered that the petitioner be reinstated as Secretary of the respondent-Society and respondent No.5 be reverted. It is the further case of the petitioner that even CWP No.13013 of 2000 (Annexure P-3) filed by the respondent-Society challenging the order dated 11.9.2000 Annexure P-1 was dismissed, thus, the respondents have committed the contempt of the court as defined under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act by not allowing him reinstatement as per the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 11.9.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed in Appeal No.81 of 1997. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed reply submitting therein that after passing of the aforesaid orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 by the Financial Commissioner, the services of the petitioner were again terminated vide Resolution No.7 dated 19.6.2001 passed by the respondent-Society and the aforesaid order is already under challenge in CWP No.14337 of 2003 filed by petitioner and the same is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted that even respondent No.5 has challenged the order Annexure P-2 by filing CWP No.13320 of 2000 which is also pending before this Court. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated by passing a fresh resolution dated 19.6.2001, it cannot be said that the orders Annexure P-1 or P-2 are surviving qua him. Even otherwise, the order dated 19.6.2001 terminating the services of the petitioner as well as the order Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated are under challenge before this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no violation of the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by the Financial COCP No.460 of 2009 -: 3 :- Commissioner. The contempt petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. August 27, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge