Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARAMJIT KAUR versus TEJINDER KAUR & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Karamjit Kaur v. Tejinder Kaur & Anr. - COCP-1565-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 8683 (16 October 2006)

COCP No.1565 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1565 of 2005

Date of decision: October 24, 2006.

Karamjit Kaur

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Tejinder Kaur & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was one of the writ petitioner in CWP No.17949 of 2000 which was disposed of by this court on March 13, 2001 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation/legal notice by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The only claim putforth in the legal notice/representation was that the petitioner's junior was allegedly drawing higher pay and, therefore, the petitioner was also required to be upgraded to remove the so-called pay anomaly.

Alleging non-compliance of the above stated order, this contempt petition has been filled.

In response to the show cause notice, a short affidavit has been filed by Harcharanjit Kaur Brar, Director of Public Instructions (SE), Punjab and along with the same, she has also appended a copy of the order dated COCP No.1565 of 2005 -: 2 :-

16.4.2004 (Annexure R-1), according to which no junior to the petitioner is drawing higher pay than her. Before passing the aforesaid order, it appears that the petitioner herself was asked to furnish particulars of her junior, if any, who, according to her, was drawing higher pay than her. The petitioner on 30.9.2003 gave in writing (Annexure R-2/T) that despite visiting a number of schools and trying her best, she was unable to find out the particulars of any such junior.

In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the contempt proceedings have been initiated only for a fishing inquiry. Consequently, no action is called for.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

October 24, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.