Disposed

Ramanjit Kaur Walia v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Oct 2016CONT.CAS(C)/210/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience regarding payment of salary arrears, the Court found the petition no longer survives. The respondent was directed to explain in writing the basis of the calculated instalments.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed. The respondents were directed to explain in writing within two weeks the basis for calculating 36 instalments of Rs. 11,400/-.

Ramanjit Kaur Walia Vs Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 210/2016

¶4

RAMANJIT KAUR WALIA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr.J.S.Lamba with Mr.Dashrath Raghav, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

HARMIT SINGH KALKA & ANR ..... Respondents Through MsAstha Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 19.10.2016

¶11

Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 6^th October, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.9518/2015, whereby the Court directed the respondent-Guru Harkishan Public School to decide the application filed by the petitioner for release of arrears of salary and dues in the light of the decision taken in Smt. Mridul Sharma vs. Director of Education & Ors., 2010 SCC Online Del. 2633 and Anuradha Gulati vs. Directorate of Education and Anr., 2013 SCC Online Del. 2512 within a period of eight weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

¶12

On the last date of hearing, the respondents had handed over the order dated 30^th May, 2016 disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner.

¶13

Today learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

¶14

respondents have not decided the issue of arrears of 6^th Pay Commission. He, however, states that three instalments of Rs.11,400/- have been deposited in the account of Ms.Ramanjit Kaur Walia. He also states that Ms.Ramanjit Kaur Walia has been orally informed that 36 instalments of Rs.11,400/- shall be paid to her on account of the arrears of 6^th Pay Commission.

¶15

Keeping in view the limited order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.9518/2015, this Court is of the view that the present contempt petition no longer survives. Consequently, the same stands disposed of.

¶16

However, the respondents are directed to explain to the petitioner in writing within a period of two weeks as to on what basis the 36 instalments of Rs.11,400/- have been calculated.

¶17

It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to seek recovery of any outstanding amount.

¶18

MANMOHAN, J

¶19

OCTOBER 19, 2016 KA

Ramanjit Kaur Walia v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanjit Kaur Walia v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

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

Vishambar Singh Negi Vs Vinai Kumar Saxena

Sanjay Bhasin Vs Alka Bhasin

Satya Chhikara Vs S Kemparaj & Ors.

National Gandhi Museum Vs Kanta Thakaran

Reetu Mongia Vs Manju Gupta & Ors.

Umed Singh (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs a Anbarasu

Anand Prakash Sharma Vs Siddharth Verma & Anr.

Dhanpati Singh Vs Rajnish Nainakwal

Vishambar Singh Negi Vs Vinai Kumar Saxena

Prem Kumari Vs Purshottam Lal

Sanjay Bhasin Vs Alka Bhasin

Rajvinder Kaur Vs Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

U.C.Sharma Vs Shri Radha Kishore Mathaur

Rekha Sethi & Ors. Vs Mohd Azhar Wasi