contempt notice to cs/hs, punjab and hs/ ut chandigarh administration-for not implementing HC directions on Advocates Welfare Fund:- Justice Mahesh Grover today issued notices in Contempt petition filed by Advocate H.C. Arora, to Rakesh Singh, Chief Secretary, Punjab/S.S. Channy, Home Secretary, Punjab, and Anil Kumar, Home Secretary, UT Chandigarh administration, for July 28th. Petitioner has stated in the COCP that Division Bench of the HC had, in a PIL filed by him, vide order dated July 11th, 2013, noticed that the State of Haryana had enhanced the quantum of financial assistance to be given to an advocate, on cessation of practice, after completion of 40 years of practice, to Rs.4.60 lakhs. The Bench had, therefore, directed the State of Punjab, that “looking into the inflation which has caused steep increase in the cost of living, in the absence of social security system, we consider it appropriate to direct that the State of Punjab would look into this aspect and endeavour to at least bring it on parity with the State of Haryana. The decision may be taken within a maximum period of one month from today.” As regards UT Chandigarh administration, the Bench had observed that “We expect the Union Territory of Chandigarh to act on parity with the aforesaid and take necessary steps within the same period of time.” The petitioner brought it to the notice of the HC that in response to an application submitted by him under RTI Act, the UT Chandigarh administration has informed him that it is yet to constitute a “Trustee Committee” for the Advocates Welfare Fund, and the matter will be considered after the constitution of Trustee Committee. The petitioner alleged that same stand was taken by UT Administration in its affidavit filed before DB-in the PIL-on October 10th, 2012. Thus, UT Chandigarh administration has not moved even an inch in the matter during last more than 8 months. As regards, Punjab Government, in reply to RTI Application, it has stated that matter is under its consideration, and requisite notification will be issued soon after taking a decision in the matter. The petitioner thus, alleged that the respondents are deliberately delaying implementation of orders issued by the Division Bench of the HC in its decision dated July 11th, 2013. (H.C.ARORA) ADVOCATE PETITIONER IN PERSON
Posted on: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 08:04:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015