* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 02, 2009
Date of Order: February 08, 2010
+ Cont Cas(C) 1491/2006
% 08.02.2010
Gurvidner Singh Saini ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management
Committee & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Shagum Mehta and Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate for
R-3
AND
+ Cont Cas(C) 673/2008
%
S. Gurvidner Singh Saini ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate
Versus
Surinder Paul Singh Oberoi ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above two contempt petitions preferred by the petitioner for violation orders dated 12th July 2006 and 3rd October 2008 passed by this Court. Vide order of which contempt is alleged this Court observed that the petitioner was entitled to a scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 from the date of his appointment and he was entitled to draw increment and other benefits according to the scale of pay. Directions were also given that the petitioner be paid his dues according to the judgment.
Cont Cas(C) 673/08 & 1491.06 Page 1 Of 3
2. The litigation between the parties continued thereafter also. A review and an LPA were also preferred. An LPA was also filed in another case pending between the parties. During pendency of LPA No.294 of 2008, parties entered into a compromise which was placed before the Division Bench of this court. This compromise recorded the terms of settlement and was signed by the petitioner and by the respondent management. The terms of compromise read as under:
"1. That the appellant has accepted Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac and seventy thousand only) towards back-wages with continuity of service from December 2006 to August 2008. The School Management shall pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant in 10 installments of th Rs.17,000/- each on or before 10 of each month along with salary.
2. That School Management shall pay salary to the th appellant in terms of judgment dated 12 July, 2006 passed in W.P(C) No.18084 of 2005 from September, 2008 onwards without prejudice to rights of the parties and subject to outcome of Review Petition No.37 of 2007. The parties are willing for early disposal of Review Petition.
3. In terms of this compromise, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- vide cheque dated 20th May, 2009. The other amounts were also paid to the petitioner in terms of compromise. The petitioner, however, continued with the present contempt petitions despite entering into the compromise with the respondent.
4. I consider that even after passing an order or directions by the Court, the parties are at liberty to settle the subject matter of the disputes by way of settlement and once the settlement is arrived at between the parties, same is binding on the parties and if the terms of settlement are honoured, no contempt Cont Cas(C) 673/08 & 1491.06 Page 2 Of 3 would lie against the respondent. In the present case, the terms of compromise were honoured and the amount in terms thereof was paid to the petitioner. In my view, no contempt was made out against the respondent. Both above contempt petitions stand dismissed. No orders as to costs.
February 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd Cont Cas(C) 673/08 & 1491.06 Page 3 Of 3