Disposed

Rajvinder Kaur v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Oct 2016CONT.CAS(C)/211/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an arbitral order directing a school to decide on salary arrears is disposed of on merits as the school had complied by filing a reply, subject to a direction to explain the calculation basis in writing.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as no longer surviving; Respondents directed to explain in writing the calculation basis for 36 instalments of Rs. 9,676/- within two weeks.

Rajvinder Kaur Vs Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr. — Delhi HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 211/2016

¶4

RAJVINDER KAUR ..... 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.9523/2015, 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.9,676/have been deposited in the account of Ms.Rajvinder Kaur. He also states that Ms.Rajvinder Kaur has been orally informed that 36 instalments of Rs. 9,676/- 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.9523/2015, 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. 9,676/- 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

Rajvinder Kaur v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvinder Kaur v. Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

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

Ramanjit Kaur Walia Vs Harmit Singh Kalka & Anr.

U.C.Sharma Vs Shri Radha Kishore Mathaur

Rekha Sethi & Ors. Vs Mohd Azhar Wasi