Dismissed

Smt. Sudha Trishuliya v. Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/3461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The contemnor filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of a writ order directed to pay recalculated pension. The contemnor submitted an affidavit showing the representation was decided and a revised pension payment order was sent. The Court held that the writ order only directed recalculation, not payment of interest. Since the writ order was complied with, the contempt petition was dismissed

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous upon confirmation that the underlying writ order was complied with.

Smt. Sudha Trishuliya Vs Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75468

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3461 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sudha Trishuliya Opposite Party :- Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Km. Neelam Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Present contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance and wilful disobedience of the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 4502 of 2024. For convenience, the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶10

2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶11

3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the re-calculated pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues.

¶12

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018 her retiral dues have not been calculated considering the benefit of ACP which has been granted to the petitioner subsequent to her retirement.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel appearing the for respondents has no objection.

¶14

6. In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶15

7. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶16

8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case."

¶17

Mrs. Sandeep Kaur, who is having officiating charge of Mrs. Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Sewa and Pushtahar, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow has filed an affidavit of compliance, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit of compliance, the respondent has enclosed copy of the decision dated 17.09.2024 taken on the representation of the applicant.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the judgment and order of the Writ Court has been complied with and the grievance of the applicant has also been considered and an afresh P.P.O after recalculation has been sent to the office of Uppar Nideshak, Koshagar evam Pension Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya on 07.11.2024, hence the present contempt petition has lost its efficacy and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the interest on the delayed payment has not been given to the applicant for which the applicant is entitled, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶20

After the perusal of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, as mentioned above, this Court has only directed the authorities to decide the representation of the applicant and there was no such direction for payment of interest on delayed payment as asked by the applicant. In para no. 3 of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, the reliefs sought by the applicant has been mentioned and there is no relief for grant of interest on delayed payment to the applicant nor this court has issued any direction for the same.

¶21

The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction has a limited jurisdiction to see as to whether the judgment and order of the Writ Court has been complied with or not.

¶22

In the present case, the judgment and order of the Writ court has been complied with and now nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present case thus, the present contempt petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ashish

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sudha Trishuliya v. Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudha Trishuliya v. Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Mangal Vs Sri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Prin. Chief Conservator of Forests, Lko.

Gyanu Sharma Vs Matam Venkata Rao, Chief Manager Central Bank of India, Mumbai and Others

Kusum Vaish Vs Ramakant Pandey, the Managing Dir. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Lko. and Others

Sundar Lal Vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director of Forest Sitapur

Raghu Vir Singh Yadav Vs Dr. Arvind Verma, Director Homeopath U.P., Lko.

Mahesh Kumar Mishra Vs Rahul Singh, Tehsildar Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi