Ravindra Singh Mehta vs Manoj Govil
2021 Latest Caselaw 5846 MP

               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                        CONC -1773-2020
                   (RAVINDRA SINGH MEHTA Vs MANOJ GOVIL AND OTHERS)


Indore, Dated : 22-09-2021
             Shri Murtuza Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
             Ms. Archana Kher, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent

No.1.

By this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner has alleged non-compliance of directions given in order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.11131/2020.

02. By order dated 11.08.2020, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court as under:

"The petitioner is son of Retd. Addl. Director, Higher Education Late Inder Singh Mehta, who has expired on 14.9.2010. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the aforesaid benefit in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.1.2013 passed in W.A. No.1488/2012 in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kamla Jain.

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that if the petitioner files an appropriate representation before the respondent No.1, then there is no objection in considering the petitioner's claim in accordance with law within a time bound period.

Hence, without adverting to the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed off by permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the respondent No.1 enclosing therewith all the necessary documents and orders on which he wants to rely upon. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the same will be considered and decided by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of its receipt."

03. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner's prayer was for consideration of his case in light of decision of Division Bench in the case of Kamla Jain (supra). As directed he submitted his representation dated 13.08.2020 but the same has not been decided.

04. On notice reply has been filed by respondent No.1 stating that in compliance of order dated 11.08.2020 passed in W.P. No.11131/2020, the pension of petitioner has been revised and difference of amount i.e. arrears to the tune of The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CONC -1773-2020 (RAVINDRA SINGH MEHTA Vs MANOJ GOVIL AND OTHERS)

Rs.3,86,108/- have been paid to him as is evident by the communication dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure R/1). The representation of petitioner has also been decided by order dated 21.01.2021(Annexure R/2).

05. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the representation of the petitioner only arrears have been paid to him but interest thereupon has not been paid. The same is in violation of order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.11131/2020, as the case of the petitioner had to be considered in light of judgment in the case of Kamla Jain (supra) as per which he was entitled for award of interest also.

06. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the direction in the petition was only for deciding the representation of the petitioner which has been done. The direction was not to consider his claim in a particular manner and to pass order accordingly. On consideration of representation of petitioner, he has not been found entitled for award of interest. If the petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of interest to him then that provides him a separate cause of action but, it cannot be said that the order dated 11.08.2020 has been disobeyed by respondent No.1 in any manner.

07. A perusal of order dated 11.08.2020 clearly reveals that it is only the representation of the petitioner which was directed to be decided in accordance with law. It was specifically made clear that the direction is being given without adverting to the merits of the matter. The reliance of petitioner on the case of Kamla Jain (supra) was his submission which was recorded in the order but did not form part of the ultimate direction which was issued. In view thereof it cannot be held that respondent No.1 has in any manner committed willful breach of the directions issued by this Court. Hence, no ground for initiating any contempt proceedings against the respondent No.1 is made out. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by respondent No.1, he shall be free to assail the same in accordance with law.

08. Consequently, finding no ground to proceed further in the matter, the present proceedings are dropped instant petition is disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2021.09.29 10:47:29 +05'30'