Sharanjit Kaur vs M. S. Nijjar And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2208 P&H

211   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        COCP-4167-2019
                                        Date of Decision :29.03.2022


Sharanjit Kaur                                            ...Petitioner

                   Versus

M.S. Nijjar, Registrar and another                        ....Respondents

Coram :     Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia

Present :   Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondents.
                        ***

B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)

[1] Prayer in the instant petition is for initiating action against

the respondents for intentional and willful defiance of judgment,

Annexure P/1 dated 30.04.2019 in CWP No.11130 of 2019 in case titled

as Sharanjit Kaur vs. Punjabi University and another.

[2] A perusal of order, Annexure P/1 dated 30.04.2019 reveals

that CWP No. 11130 of 2019 was disposed of with a direction to the

Punjabi University, Patiala to pass appropriate order on the claim of the

petitioner(s) for grant of benefit of daily wage service while computing

the qualifying service as well as interest on the delayed release of the

payment keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this

Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab andOrs, 1988 (2) PLR 223 as

well as inA.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 468 within

three months.

[3] Pursuant to issuance of notice, although short reply was filed

on behalf of respondent No.2, on 08.09.2020, yet today learned counsel

for the respondents has filed reply of Prof. Varinder Kumar Kaushik,

1 of 2

COCP-4167-2019 [2]

Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala present incumbent on the post of

Registrar along with Annexure R-1/1 dated 29.06.2020 releasing

payment of Rs.4,62,103/- on account of gratuity vide cheque dated

16.05.2019 and Rs.5,43,650/- on account of leave encashment vide

cheque dated 15.04.2019 (by counting the benefit of daily wage service

while computing qualifying service). The said reply along with

Annexure R-1/1 dated 29.06.2020 is taken on record. Copy thereof

supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner, who states that in the

circumstances, the petitioner does not press the instant petition but liberty

be granted to the petitioner to challenge Annexure R-1/1 dated

29.06.2020 to the extent it does not grant interest to the petitioner on the

delayed release of payment.

[4] In view of Annexure R-1/1 dated 29.06.2020 having been

passed in compliance of order, Annexure P/1 dated 30.04.2019 in CWP

No.11130 of 2019 as well as statement of learned counsel for the

petitioner, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is called for

against the respondents.

[5] Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of as not

calling for any action against the respondents under the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 while granting liberty to the petitioner as prayed for.

[6]          Rule discharged.


                                                            (B.S. Walia)
                                                              Judge
29.03.2022
'Amit'
                    Whether speaking/ reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether reportable           :     Yes/No




                                  2 of 2