Sh. Santosh Kumar vs Hptdc And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 5596 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                    ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                                       BEFORE




                                                                         .
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA





          CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT NO. 467 OF 2021





    Between:-

    SH. SANTOSH KUMAR
    SON OF LATE SH. SHAD RAM,
    R/O VILLAGE NUGRAN, POST OFFICE KASHMIR,





    THE. NADAUN, DISTT. HAMIRPUR,
    H.P.-177006
                                                                          PETITIONER

    (BY MR. O.P. GOEL, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1.     AMIT KASHYAP,
           MANAGIN GDIRECTOR,
           HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURSIM
           DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.


           RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA 171 001

    2.     SH. MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA,
           SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER,




           HPTDC, RITZ ANNEXE,
           SHIMLA 171001.





                                                                     RESPONDENTS
    (BY MR. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE)
    Whether approved for reporting:





     This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court delivered the following:

                                 JUDGMENT

By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of

the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents

for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in

judgment dated 5.7.2021 passed by this court in CWP No. 1155 of 2021, titled

Santosh Kumar vs. HPTDC and others, whereby a direction was issued to the

respondents to release retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months.

Since aforesaid order never came to be complied with in its letter and spirit,

.

petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf

of the respondents, states that a sum Rs.10,83,745/- stands remitted to bank

account of the petitioner on account of retiral benefits. He states that balance

sum, if any, on account of leave encashment and interest on delayed payment

shall be paid within four weeks.

3. Having taken note of the aforesaid substantial compliance made by

the respondents of the judgment alleged to have been violated, this court

sees no reason to keep the proceedings alive and the same are accordingly

closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. However, liberty is

reserved to the petitioner to get the present proceedings revived, in case

balance payment is not made within a period of four weeks.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 6, 2021 (vikrant)