CLCON/73/2017
2021 Latest Caselaw 745 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
        ON THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                        BEFORE:
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

       CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 73 OF 2017


BETWEEN:
    Ramesh Chandra Pandey                     ......Petitioner
    (There is no representation for the petitioner)



AND:
    Sri Bhajan Singh                      .....Respondent
    (Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate)


                      JUDGMENT

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 75 of 2016 filed by petitioner was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015. The directions issued by Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015, are reproduced below:-

"The petitioners are retired employees and we feel that it will be unfair to deprive them of the benefits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of all the three writ petitions as follows:

(i) Within a period of two months from today, the amount of leave encashment be paid to the petitioners.

(ii) Within a period of five months from today, the amount due by way of commutation of pension be paid to the petitioners.

(iii) The balance amount due by way of other benefits be paid to the petitioners within a period of seven months from today.

(v) We also direct that, if the Corporation has moved the Government of Uttarakhand seeking funds for the payment of the said amounts, the Government of Uttarakhand will consider the said request in accordance with law at the earliest."

2. In this Contempt Petition, it is alleged that the order of this Court has not been complied with.

3. Respondent-Bhajan Singh has filed counter affidavit. In paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that all admissible dues of the petitioner have been released. The averment, made in the counter affidavit, has not been disputed by petitioner by way of filing rejoinder affidavit.

4. In such view of the matter, this Court has no other option; but, to treat the averment made in the counter affidavit, as correct.

5. Since all the admissible dues of the petitioner have been paid to him, therefore, no contempt of the order of this Court is made out.

6. Accordingly, Contempt Petition is closed. Contempt notice issued against respondent is hereby discharged.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin