Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sudesh Kumar Gargotra vs Ranjit Sinha on 9 December, 2021
5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: CPLPA No. 1/2013
&
SWP No. 1035/2014
Sudesh Kumar Gargotra ...petitioner(s)
Sudesh Kumar Gargotra
Through: Petitioner is present.
V/s
Ranjit Sinha, D.G. ITBP and others .... Respondent(s)
UOI and others
Through: Sh. Vishal Sharma ASGI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1 Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has
complained about non-compliance of order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this
Court in Review (LPA) No. 9/2011 in LPASW No. 177/2009.
2 Before coming to the aforesaid order, certain facts, which
emerge from the record of the case, are required to be noticed. The
petitioner was serving in ITBP and vide order dated 21.01.1998 issued by
the Inspector General of Police, ITBP, he was compulsorily retired from
service. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner before this
Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 850/2000. The order
impugned in the said writ petition came to be set aside giving liberty to the
respondents to hold fresh enquiry into the matter, if so advised.
CPLPA 1/2013
3 It appears that the respondents allowed the petitioner to
resume his duties and initiated fresh enquiry into the matter. At the same
time, the respondents also challenged judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed by
the Writ Court by filing an appeal bearing LPASW No.96/2003. During the
pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner, upon conclusion of the enquiry
initiated by the respondents pursuant to the Judgment of the Writ Court,
was dismissed from service in terms of order dated 31.08.2005 passed by
the respondents. In the meanwhile, the Division Bench of this Court
allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and vide its judgment
dated 12.02.2008, set aside the judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed by the
Writ Court on the ground that the Writ Court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition.
4 It further appears that the petitioner filed a review petition
against the judgment of the Division Bench and in the said review petition
i.e Review (LPA) No. 9/2011, order dated 22.11.2012 came to be passed
by the Division Bench whereby a direction was issued to the ITBP and its
functionaries to take requisite steps for release of pensionary benefits
which are available to the petitioner under rules. It is this order which is
subject matter of the present contempt petition.
5 It would be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid review
petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its
order dated 27.11.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order
granting him pension on any available ground.
CPLPA 1/2013
6 From the foregoing sequence of events, it is clear that the
interim order of which the petitioner is seeking implementation has merged
with the aforesaid final order passed in the review petition and, therefore,
the present contempt petition does not survive.
7 Apart from the above, in terms of order, which is subject
matter of this contempt petition, the respondents were directed to take steps
for release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner under rules. It is clearly
noted in the final order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in aforesaid review petition that on the basis of order of
compulsory retirement even the pension order has already been issued in
favour of petitioner on 31.10.2013. The compliance report filed by the
respondents on 30.01.2014 also indicates that the petitioner has been paid
the dues. It would be profitable to reproduce para 3 of the said compliance
report.
"3.That the Pension paper order bearing
No. 231841306721 has been issued in favour of
Ex. SI/PNR (Electrician) Sudesh Kumar Gargotra vide
PAO, ITBP letter No. P-1/560/2013/31129-33 dated
31.10.2013 to release the pensionary benefits. It is also
intimated that Rs.55,825/- of DCRG, Rs.1,31,936/- of
pension arrear, Rs.6,978/- of CGEGIS final payment and
Rs.38,280/- of leave encashment, total Rs.2, 33, 019/-
(Rs. Two Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Nineteen Only) of
pensionary benefits have been paid to the applicant vide
D.V.No.31224 dated 15.01.2014, D.V.No.31819 dated
21.01.2014, D.V. No. 31435 dated 16.01.2014 and
D.V.No. 31431 dated 16.01.2014."
7 In view of what is provided in the compliance report
reproduced and the facts discussed hereinbefore, we are of the view that no
case for proceeding further against the respondents is made out as the
CPLPA 1/2013
respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court. The
contempt proceedings are, accordingly, dropped and the contempt petition
along with its connected application is disposed of as such.
SWP No. 1035/2014 be delinked and be listed separately on
15.02.2022.
(SANJAY DHAR) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
09.12.2021
Sanjeev PS
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable :Yes/No
