Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018CONT.CAS(C)/913/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single paragraph order dismisses a contempt petition alleging non-payment of pensionary benefits. The court directs the petitioner to approach the Vishwa Bharati University first with a representation before seeking further legal remedies, holding that no impost infringes have been shown to remain outstanding.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to make representation to University regarding outstanding benefits before seeking further remedies.

Ramesh Chandra Mondal Vs S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 913/2018

¶4

RAMESH CHANDRA MON Through: versus	DAL ..... Petitioner Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Mrs.Punam Singh, Mrs.Shabani Chakraborty and Ms. Rakesh Mishra, Advocates.
S K PATTANAYAK, SECRE Through:	TARY & ORS ..... Respondents Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Sanjiv Kumar
	Saxena, Mr. M.K. Tiwari,
	Mr.Abhishek Rana and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates for R-1 to R-3.
	Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Anandh
	Venkataramani, Mr. Vinayak
	Mehrotra, Advocates along with
	Mr.Ashok Kumar Mahato, Joint
	Registrar, Legal Cell and Mr.Daibaki Nandan, DAS, AR (Accounts) for R-4 to R-6.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 17.01.2020

¶7

CM APPL. 13548/2019 (for restoration) & 15253/2019 (for modification of order dated 25.03.2019)

¶8

During the course of hearing, Mr. Bansal, ld. counsel for the University i.e. Vishwa Bharati University, submits that the applicant who retired on 31.07.2009 has been released the pensionary benefits besides the payment of arrears. Ld. counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that he has

¶9

no instructions in that regard.

¶10

The instant contempt petition came to be filed alleging non-payment of the pensionary benefits. In the event, any other retiral benefit is remaining outstanding and payable by the respondents, the petitioner should make a representation to the University i.e. Vishwa Bharati University, in the first instance and should he have any surviving grievance, it shall be open to the petitioner to have recourse to the remedy(ies) as may be available under law. With the above observations, the applications are disposed of.

¶11

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶12

JANUARY 17, 2020 nn

Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.

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

Asmat Ara & Ors. Vs Majid Dev Bhandi

D R Mittal Vs Kamaljeet Kaur

Jasbir Dabas Vs M/S Pheonix Arc Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs Raj Dulari & Ors.

Amita Gandoak Vs Raj Pal Meena Sub Registrar Iii, Asaf Ali Road and Anr.

Syed Hamidullah Vs a Mona Shreenivas

Capt Anand Sarup Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Rohit Nandan, Chairman and Managing Director of Air India

Ex Insp/Gd Gaffar Khan (Retd) Vs Rajiv Gauba & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

Jyoti Bisht Vs Parveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Ram Karan Rai & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kajal Kanti Nath Vs S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.