CLCON/386/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 2 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL
        ON THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
                          BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA


         Contempt Petition No. 386 of 2020


BETWEEN:
Raj Singh (Male, aged about 62 years) S/o SahabLal
R/o Village Narsant Kalan, Gurukul Narsan, Tehsil
Roorkee Distt. Haridwar, presently retired employee at
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Roorkee Depot,
Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar
                                                 ....Petitioner
      (By Smt. Neetu Singh, Advocate)


AND:
1.   Mr. Ranvir Singh Chouhan, Managing Director, Uttarakhand
     Transport Corporation HQ, Dehradun Uttarakhand.
2.   Mr. Deepak Jain, General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport
     Corporation HQ, Dehradun Uttarakhand.
3.   Mr. C.P. Kapoor, Divisional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport
     Corporation HQ, Dehradun Uttarakhand.
4.   Mr. Alok, Asstt. General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport
     Corporation Roorkee Depot, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand.


                                                .....Respondents

      (By Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate)


                           ORDER

The petitioner, had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1897 of 2019, praying for the payment of retiral dues. The pleadings were exchanged

and in the pleadings, it was reflected that an amount of Rs. 9,00,633/-, which was payable to the petitioner, towards the gratuity was already remitted. In relation to the balance retiral dues, which was claimed by the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 09.12.2019 with the following directions:-

"In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to make payment of outstanding retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of four months from today.

No order as to costs."

2. If the said direction which was given by the coordinate Bench of this Court itself is taken into consideration, there was no detailed classification of the different heads, under which the petitioner, would be entitled to receive the amount and there was no quantification too, which is alleged to be payable by the respondent. Hence the contempt petition was filed on 20.10.2020, on which this Court has issued notices to the respondents on 27.10.2020.

3. The respondents have put in appearance and had filed their response affidavit on 19.12.2020. In the response affidavit thus filed, the respondents had made the following averments in para 6 of the compliance affidavit which reads as under:-

"6 That in pursuance to report of Special Audit team the calculation and earlier determination of benefit of ACP has been scrutinized and in the scrutiny it is found that the salary fixation of the petitioner is right. The remaining outstanding retiral dues as ACP arrear of Rs. 1,52,084/, arrear of annual salary increment Rs. 97,778/-

and salary arrear of Rs. 6825/-, the total amount of Rs. 2,56,687/- has been given to the petitioner vide cheque no. 430204 dated 09.12.2020. A photocopy of the cheque dated 9.12.2020 with receiving is being annexed as Annexure No. A-1 to this affidavit."

4. As per the averments made therein in para 6 of the compliance affidavit, the amount of arrears of ACP of Rs. 1,52,084/-, the arrears of annual salary increment of Rs. 97,778/-, and arrears of salary of Rs. 6,825/- total amount of Rs. 2,56,687/- is shown to have been already disbursed to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 430204 dated 19.12.2020.

5. However, as far as the remittance of the said amount as detailed in para 6, is concerned, the same is not disputed but however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the controversy, with regard to certain allowances which according to the petitioner are still left due to be paid and hence he persisted that this contempt ought to be kept alive to adjudicate the said aspect.

6. This Court is not in agreement with the tenacity of the argument, as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner; for the reason being that the judgement of which the contempt is alleged, in fact, had never detailed the heads under which the payment was required to be made to the petitioner, by the respondents, in fact it was an order/direction for the remittance of retiral dues and according to the interpretation of response; whatever retiral dues was payable as per the averments made in para 6 and still if the dissatisfaction persists with the petitioner, he will

have to work out his remedies available to him under law.

7. Consequently, I am of the view that in view of the averments made in the compliance affidavit, the amount has already been remitted thus the contempt petition is closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Mahinder/