Dismissed

Kamal Mahendru v. K.a.Shah Secy.G.a.D.and Ors.

J&K HC2 Dec 2023CPSW/336/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by the petitioner seeking gratuity. The court held that the original writ judgment was specific to reinstatement and consequential benefits, not gratuity recovery, directing the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies for gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue appropriate legal remedy for gratuity recovery.

Kamal Mahendru Vs K.a.Shah Secy.G.a.D.and Ors. — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2023)

¶1

Serial No. 02

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

Case:CPSW No. 336/2017

¶4

Kamal Mahendru …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

¶7

K. A. Shah, Secy. GAD and others .…. Respondent(s)

¶8

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER (02.12.2023)

¶11

1. This contempt petition came to be filed in the year 2017 by reference to the judgment dated 01.05.2017 of the writ court passed in SWP no. 2107/2015. The operative portion of the relief granted in the said writ petition is reproduced herein:

¶12

“In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with the mandate of Article 226 (2) of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 as well as the instructions applicable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and petitioner ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law qua the departmental proceedings initiated and which are pending against the petitioner. Writ petition allowed in aforementioned terms.”

¶13

2. Pursuant to this judgment of the writ court which came to attain finality after dismissal of the letters patent appeal (LPA) and Special Leave Petition (SLP), the petitioner came to be restored to his service in terms of Government Order no. 344-GAD of 2018 dated 02.03.2018 thereby earning to the petitioner all the consequential benefits as were admissible to him in the

¶14

2 CPSW No. 336/2017

¶15

context of the directions as given in the judgment. This contempt petition was filed in the year 2017 when compliance of the writ court judgment had not come forward from the Government’s end.

¶16

3. After passing of the Government Order no. 344-GAD of 2018 dated 02.03.2018 whatsoever was due to the petitioner in the context of his reinstated service stood granted and as such there was no cause for the petitioner to persist with this contempt petition.

¶17

4. Accordingly, the matter for payment for any gratuity and admissible to the petitioner is a post-retirement scenario for which the present contempt petition cannot be stretched by the petitioner to seek payment and recovery of the gratuity amount as that would be going beyond the domain of the writ court judgment dated 01.05.2017 which was very specific in its context that reinstatement of service with the consequential benefits to be available to the petitioner on account of his reinstatement.

¶18

5. In case, for any reason whatsoever, the petitioner is not being paid his gratuity, then the petitioner is supposed to pursue appropriate legal remedy for seeking recovery of the said gratuity amount. Disposal of this contempt petition shall in no manner prejudice the right of the petitioner in the event of appropriate legal remedy being resorted to by him with respect to his purported claim for gratuity.

¶19

6. Disposed of.

¶20

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE

JAMMU

02.12.2023

Shivalee

Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Kamal Mahendru v. K.a.Shah Secy.G.a.D.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Mahendru v. K.a.Shah Secy.G.a.D.and 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

Ghulam Mohd Naik Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Principal Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Daya Krishan Vs Darshan Singh and Others

Mohd Asrar Vs U T of J and K Th Officer in Charge SHO Police Station Kathua

Rajinder Kumar Jain Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Housing and Urban Development Deptt and Others

Dharam Chand Vs Mohit Raina Tehsildar Katra and Ors.

Dharam Chand Vs State Th.R.D.D.and Ors.