Disposed

Shri Kamla Singh v. Shri P K Gupta Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi HC9 Apr 2015CONT.CAS(C)/92/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings, a Single Judge examined whether a previous order directed the respondent Corporation to pay 9% interest on dearness allowance arrears to the petitioner. The judge held the order was for recovery of dues, not payment of interest, and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to seek clarification from concerned Court if still aggrieved.

Shri Kamla Singh Vs Shri P K Gupta Commissioner, North Delhi… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 9^th April, 2015

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 92/2014 & CM Nos.9590/14, 15410/14, 15411/14,18984/14, 20790/14, 17278/14

¶5

SHRI KAMLA SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria and Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI P K GUPTA COMMISSIONER, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

¶9

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

¶10

The contempt proceedings are predicated on the alleged non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 11.10.2013 while disposing of writ petition No.4273/2013.

¶11

I note, vide the aforesaid order, directions were passed as under:-

¶12

“We set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the petitioner to claim the amount in question i.e. Rs.2,78,785/- from the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date it became due till

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

Cont. Cas (C) 92/2014

¶15

today by adjusting from the arrears of dearness allowance due to the respondent by calculating the dues with interest of 9% from the date it was due till the date of actual payment and pay the balance to the respondent. If a further amount has to be claimed from the respondent, the petitioner would intimate the respondent in that regard within a period of four weeks and the respondent accordingly satisfy the said claim within four weeks thereafter.”

¶16

It is not in dispute that the respondent has recovered the amount of Rs.2,78,785/- from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it became due till date of order, i.e., 11.10.2013. It is also not in dispute that the dearness allowance was adjusted against the dues due to the petitioner. The interest of 9% has also been recovered on the dues which were due to the petitioner.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent withheld the dearness allowance from 01.07.1997 till date, whereas vide order dated 11.10.2013, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent to adjust the amount from the dearness allowance by calculating 9% interest per annum thereon.

¶18

The moot question before this Court is that whether this Court vide order dated 11.10.2013 directed the respondent to pay 9% interest on the dearness allowance. In para one of the said order, it is recorded by the Court, the respondent impugned the order dated 07.05.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.337/2013 whereby the Tribunal had allowed aforementioned OA by directing

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Cont. Cas (C) 92/2014

¶21

the respondent to release the arrears of dearness allowance in pension along with interest after adjusting the normal licence fee.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Tribunal has been set aside. While setting aside the order, this Court recorded the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was in violation of undertaking given pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court. He was forcefully evicted from the flat in question on 14.05.2007, which means that for long ten years, the respondent remained in occupation of the flat. Due to her over stay more needy persons were denied the benefit of residential accommodation. Accordingly, the licence fee was required to be claimed by the respondent in accordance with the rules. Moreover, a very compassionate view was taken by the respondent/Corporation by waiving of 50% of damage charges and could have been claimed by the respondent under the rules. Accordingly, this Court agreed with the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the respondent was in violation of the undertaking given pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. There was no justifiable reason for him to continue to occupy the flat even after July 31, 2001. He did not vacate the quarter voluntarily, however, forcefully evicted his occupation.

¶23

On perusal of the directions passed by this Court, this Court has specifically directed that the respondent was entitled to claim the amount of Rs.2,78,785/- from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it became due till 11.10.2013 by adjusting from the arrears of dearness allowance, by calculating dues

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

Cont. Cas (C) 92/2014

¶26

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was due till the date of actual payment and pay the balance to the petitioner. Thus, it is clear from the directions passed by this Court, the respondent was entitled to recover the interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.2,78,785/and the dues amount as well.

¶27

In my considered opinion, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2013 has not directed that the petitioner was entitled interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears of dearness allowance lying with the interest.

¶28

In view of the above, I am not inclined to pass any order against the respondent.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, if he is still aggrieved, may seek clarification on this issue from the concerned Court.

¶30

SURESH KAIT, J

¶31

APRIL 09, 2015 ‘sn’/jg

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

Cont. Cas (C) 92/2014

Shri Kamla Singh v. Shri P K Gupta Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kamla Singh v. Shri P K Gupta Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation

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

Similar cases

H v Kumar & Ors. Vs Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors.

Maharishi Dayanand College of Education Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

G R College of Education Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

Sunrise College of Education Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

Meenu Aggarwal Vs Sdmc & Anr.

Surat Singh College of Education Thr Shri Surat Singh Jankalyan Trust (Regd) Thr Amarender Singh Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

Insp./Gd Barot Jignesh Kumar Vs Praksh Mishra IPS Directorate General Crpf

Ravinder Kaur Vs Balvinder Kumar (Vice Chairman) & Anr.

H v Kumar & Ors. Vs Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors.

Virender Vashist Vs Union of India & Ors.

Maharishi Dayanand College of Education Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

Meenu Aggarwal Vs Sdmc & Anr.

Surat Singh College of Education Thr Shri Surat Singh Jankalyan Trust (Regd) Thr Amarender Singh Vs Juglal Singh & Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra Vs All India Bank Deposit Collectors Federation & Anr.