This order by Justice Rajesh Bindal in a contempt petition dismissed the proceedings after a receipt showed the petitioner received pending interest, granting liberty to revive the petition if payment fails.
Proceedings dropped; liberty granted to revive petition if unpaid amount remains outstanding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COCP No. 2139 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No. 2139 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 5.3.2013
Avtar Singh Basra
.. Petitioner
versus
Shri P. S. Aujla and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Mittal, Legal Assistant, office of Public Works Department (B&R), Patiala.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Vide order dated 3.2.2010 passed in CWP No. 1750 of 2010, this court directed the respondents to decide the legal notice got served by the petitioner and also that in case he is found entitled for any amount, the same shall also be released to him along with interest. COCP No. 2047 of 2010 was earlier filed by the petitioner raising a grievance that the order passed by this court was not complied with. It was disposed of on 23.1.2012 considering the fact that the amount due to the petitioner had been released, however, as the interest therein had not been paid, the respondents therein were directed to pay him the interest.
Mr. Deepak Mittal, Legal Assistant, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, has produced a receipt dated 28.2.2013 issued by the petitioner for receipt of bank draft no. 430474 dated 28.2.2013 amounting to ` 81,706/-. It has been stated in the aforesaid receipt that he has received all pending interest on gratuity, leave encashment upto date and nothing more is due from the department.
Considering the receipt produced in court, which has been taken on record, the proceedings initiated against the respondents are dropped. The present contempt petition is disposed of. However, liberty is
COCP No. 2139 of 2012
2
granted to the petitioner to revive the petition, if any amount due to him is not paid, as the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared.
5.3.2013 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt proceedings regarding non-payment of interest on gratuity and leave encashment should be dropped.
Avtar Singh Basra
Shri P. S. Aujla
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
