Disposed

sita ram v. dhan laxmi k.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019CAPL/1200/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the court noted that the opposite party filed an affidavit declaring the applicant entitled to pensionary benefits calculated from his initial appointment date, complying with a prior writ court direction based on Supreme Court precedent. No further proceedings were required.

What did the court decide?

Notices issued to opposite parties were discharged and the contempt application stood consigned to record.

sita ram Vs dhan laxmi k. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1200 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sita Ram Opposite Party :- Dhan Laxmi K. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of the direction given by this Court on 24.10.2017 in Writ-A No.48951 of 2017. The direction was to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of U.P., Lucknow to take decision in relation to pension payable to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Habib Khan Vs. Uttarakhand and others decided on 23.8.2017 (Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017). In Habib Khan , the Supreme Court had directed for extension of the benefit of services rendered as work charged employee for puropses of computation of pension.

¶6

When no decision was taken in compliance of the direction issued by the Writ Court, the instant contempt application was filed.

¶7

In compliance of previous order of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.3 alongwith which the decision taken by her in compliance of order of the Writ Court has been brought on record. The order is dated 25.7.2019, whereunder, while deciding the representation of the petitioner, she has held the petitioner entitled to pensionary benefits, adding the service rendered by him from the date of his initial appointment on 10.3.1979 till date of regularization on 1.4.2006. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Sub Divisional Officer has been duly communicated the order passed by her by letter dated 26.7.2019 so as to ensure fixation of pension of the petitioner accordingly and payment of retiral dues to him.

¶8

Sri Vishal Kakkar, learned standing counsel states that the respondents will ensure that pension and retiral benefits are paid to the petitioner within three months from the date the petitioner completes all the formalities.

¶9

Having regard to the order passed by respondent no.3 and the statement made by learned standing counsel, no ground is made out to proceed any further in the instant matter. The notices issued to the opposite parties shall stand discharged accordingly.

¶10

The contempt application stands consigned to record.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶12

Order Date :- 31.7.2019 SL

sita ram v. dhan laxmi k.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sita ram v. dhan laxmi k.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Shreya Vidyarthi Vs Additional District Judge Court No. 4 District Kanpur Nagar and Another

Ved Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Beena Dixit Vs Gyanwati Devi and 5 Others

Chandrama Prasad Maurya Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi and 6 Others

Bheem Prasad Gupta Vs Anil Chaturvedi S.D.M. Sikandarpur and Another

Ashok Kumar Srivastava Vs Vinay Kumar Pandey