CLCON/395/2016
2021 Latest Caselaw 621 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL
             ON THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                            BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

       CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 395 OF 2016


BETWEEN:
      Dr. Susheel Kumar Sharma                    ......Petitioner
      (Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate)



AND:
      Shri S. Ramaswami & others              .....Respondents
      (Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 & Mr. Rajendra Dobhal,
      Senior    Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr.    Devang   Dobhal,
      Advocate for respondent no. 3)


                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a retired teacher of a College affiliated to H.N.B. Garhwal University. He was removed from service, against which he filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 336 of 2011, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 03.12.2015.

2. In this Contempt Petition, petitioner has alleged that the judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is not being complied with.

3. It is an admitted fact that retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner by treating him to have been retired at the age of 60 years. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner completed 60 years, which was

the age of superannuation at the relevant time, on 11.09.2011.

4. Thereafter, U.G.C. guidelines were enforced, which provide for retirement age of 65 years for teachers of the Universities. Petitioner claims benefit of the U.G.C. guidelines. According to him, the State Government has passed certain orders in his favour for grant of pensionery benefits, by treating him to have been retired at the age of 65 years.

5. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, however, submits that the college has challenged these Government Orders, by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2018. He has produced in Court one interim order dated 29.11.2018 passed in the said writ petition. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-

"Needless to state that the entitlement of respondent no. 3 for payment of retiral benefits for the differential period (retiral benefits, which is now required to be paid treating the age of superannuation as 60 years and the retiral benefits liable to be paid by the petitioner later, if this Court were to hold that respondent no. 3 is entitled to be paid retiral benefits treating his age superannuation as 65 years) shall be subject to the result of the writ petition."

6. Since the dispute, as to whether petitioner would be treated to have been retired at the age of 60 years or 65 years, is pending before the Division Bench and the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 336 of 2011 has been complied with, therefore, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition.

7. Accordingly, Contempt Petition is closed. Contempt notices issued against respondents are hereby discharged.

8. However, it is made clear that this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in any manner and he will be free to agitate the same before the appropriate forum.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin