LPA No. 190 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 190 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 Yudhbir Singh Khyalia, Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. ....Appellant. Versus Chetan Sharma ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, orders impugned are dated 15.9.1996 and subsequent order dated 22.9.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in COCP No.752 of 2004. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent was appointed initially for six months by the appellant - University vide letter dated 20.8.2003. However, extension was given up to 30.4.2004 or till the classes were over whichever was earlier. It was stipulated that services of the respondent can be terminated without any notice at any time from either side. The services of the respondent were dispensed with vide order dated LPA No. 190 of 2006 2 23.3.2004 and the respondent was relieved from his duties with immediate effect. The respondent filed a writ petition before this Court being CWP No.5485 of 2004, challenging the order dated 23.4.2004 by which his services were dispensed with. On 1.4.2004, this Court passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that somewhat similar matter arisen in CWP No.5402 of 2004 and that the same is now fixed for hearing on 25.7.2004. Notice of motion for the date already fixed i.e. 25.7.2004. In the meanwhile, the termination of the petitioner shall remain stayed till further orders.” 3. This order was served on the University on 5.4.2004 with a covering letter of the respondents. The respondent was not allowed to join even after stay was granted by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2004. The respondent moved contempt petitioner before this Court being COCP No.752 of 2004. In the contempt petition, the appellant filed written statement specifically contending in paragraph 4 as under: - “4. That the contents of para No.4 of the Contempt petition regarding submission of the representation, copy Annexure P/3, is admitted. However, since the services of the petitioner were dispensed/terminated and he stood relieved in compliance thereof on 23.3.2004, question of implementing of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 1.4.2004 did not arise. Vide order dated 1.4.2004, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to stay termination of the services of the petitioner which termination had taken place much earlier to the passing of the stay order.” LPA No. 190 of 2006 3 5. Contempt petition came up for hearing before learned Single Judge on 20.7.2004. Learned Single Judge passed the following order: - “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that vide order dated 1.4.2004, this Court had categorically stayed termination of service of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondent in para 4 of the written statement, prima facie, amounts to committing contempt of this Court. In order to give one more opportunity to the respondent to comply with the order of this Court, Adj. to 7.9.2006, failing which the Registrar shall come present in the Court on adjourned date. To be shown in urgent list.” 6. Thereafter, the appellant – University wrote a letter dated 24.8.2006 requiring the respondent (writ petitioner) to report for duty to the chairman of the Department by 4.9.2006. Thereafter, another memo dated 14.9.2006 was sent to the respondent asking him to join duties immediately. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.9.2006 directed the appellant to pay emoluments to the petitioner from the date of termination of his services till he got another employment with effect from 24.6.2005. The payment has already been made to the respondent by the appellant – University vide bank cheque No.913027 dated 20.9.2006, which has been recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 22.9.2006. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that direction to pay emoluments to the respondent herein from the date of termination was bad in law since he did not join duty after the stay being LPA No. 190 of 2006 4 granted by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2004. 9. Undisputedly, the University took the stand in paragraph 4 of its written statement that since services of the respondent were terminated prior to the passing of stay order and he stood relieved in compliance thereof on 23.3.2004, question of implementing the order passed by this Court dated 1.4.2004 did not arise. However, in contempt petition, appellant – University took U-turn and started arguing that the respondent herein himself failed to join duty. In view of the contrary stand taken by the appellant – University and by not allowing respondent to join despite stay being granted by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2004, in our opinion, learned Single Judge was well within his jurisdiction to direct the University to pay emoluments to the respondent herein from the date of termination of his services till the date he joined elsewhere. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 03.03.2010 sk.