Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another vs Lt. Col. Shanjit Singh Bhullar(Retd)

1-
LPA-1853-2026 (O&M) -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(201)
LPA-1853-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 27.10.2026
Rajesh Kumar Singh and another ... Appellants
Versus
Lt. Col. Shanjit Singh Bhullar (Retd.) ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present:- Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate
for the appellants.

ORAL
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( )
1. This intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellants
impugning orders dated 30.04.2026, 19.05.2026 and 29.05.2026 passed by a
learned Single Judge in COCP-5678-2025, whereby cost of Rs.3 lakh was
imposed with a direction that it be deducted equally from the salary of the
appellants.
2.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, counsel for the appellants, submits that
respondent No.1 approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at
Chandimandir, by filing a petition claiming disability pension, which was
accepted on 10.10.2018 and a direction was issued to calculate the arrears and
make the payment of disability pension at the rate of 50% with effect from
25.06.2014, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
the order. According to the counsel, this order was challenged by filing a
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.11.02 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

2-
LPA-1853-2026 (O&M) -
petition (CWP-13538-2025), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court on 21.08.2025. The relevant extract of the order passed on 21.08.2025 is
reproduced hereunder:-
“ 8. It may be noticed that the order passed by the
Tribunal in the year 2018 has been challenged by the
petitioners in the year 2025, i.e. after a period of seven
years. The respondents have not implemented the judgment
in favour of the respondents for sufficiently long time
hence, the respondents are directed to implement the said
judgment within a period of four weeks from the date of the
receipt of copy of this order.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances,
the order dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Tribunal, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the present case coupled with the settled principle of law,
has not been shown to be perverse in any manner.
10. No ground is made out for any interference by
this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”
3.
Counsel submits that after the passing of the direction by the writ
Court, steps were initiated to comply with the order and after the completion of
the requisite procedural requirements, a sanction letter dated 05.05.2026,
Annexure A-2, was issued, which was followed by PPO dated 08.05.2026. But
in the meanwhile, in contempt proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, this
Court vide order dated 30.04.2026, directed the appellants to file a compliance
affidavit and in the event of failure to do so, directed imposition of cost of Rs.1
lakh, which was subsequently increased to Rs.3 lakhs vide order dated
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.11.02 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

3-
LPA-1853-2026 (O&M) -
30.04.2026. Counsel asserts that a compliance affidavit along with the sanction
letter and other documents were filed before the contempt Court. Even a
demand draft of Rs.3 lakhs by way of cost was also handed over to the counsel
for respondent No.1 during the course of the hearing of the contempt petition.
She states that vide order dated 29.05.2026, contempt Court recorded that
judgment has been complied with, contempt has been purged and rule is
discharged. Counsel asserts that there was no intention to delay the compliance
of direction dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court. It is her argument that once
substantive direction stood complied with and contempt stood purged,
contempt Court erred in directing recovery of cost of Rs.3 lakhs from the
salary of the appellants.
4.
Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents on 10.07.2026.
As per office report, contesting respondent No.1 has been served. However,
there is no appearance on his behalf.
5. We have heard counsel for the appellants and considered her
submissions.
6. The role of a petitioner in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, is to bring the alleged disobedience of the Court's directions to its
notice. Whether such directions have, in fact, been violated and whether the
alleged contemnor is liable to be proceeded against, are matters falling within
the domain of the Contempt Court. Admittedly, directions issued by the Writ
Court have been duly complied with. The requisite sanction order and Pension
Payment Order (PPO) have been issued, sanctioning disability pension in
favour of respondent No. 1. Cost imposed by the Contempt Court have
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.11.02 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

4-
LPA-1853-2026 (O&M) -
also been disbursed. Upon taking note of such compliance, the Contempt
Court held that the contempt stood purged and discharged the rule. In these
circumstances, particularly when the substantive directions of the Writ Court
stand complied with and the cost imposed have also been paid, this Court is of
the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the
proceedings and that the matter deserves to be given a quietus.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However, the direction
issued by the Contempt Court for recovery of the cost from the salaries of the
appellants is hereby set aside.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed
of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
( RAJESH GAUR )
JUDGE
27.10.2026
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.11.02 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.