Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Krishan Kumar Dhull

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013COCP/2249/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding, the petitioner alleged violation of a prior order preventing recovery of excess pay. The court found no case for contempt despite the recovery of amounts fixed under a revised scale after an undertaking was given. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed. Petitioner given liberty to seek appropriate remedy if aggrieved by recovery action.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Krishan Kumar Dhull — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COCP No.2249 of 2012 1

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

COCP. No.2249 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:11.03.2013

Ashok Kumar Gupta

..... Petitioner

Versus

Krishan Kumar Dhull

...... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL, J.(Oral)

¶14

The petitioner approached this court with a grievance that the order passed in C.W.P. No.908 of 1988 on December 20, 2011 has been violated as recovery of the amount allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner has been made from the amount payable to him.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court while disposing of the writ petition and upholding re-fixation of the pay, directed that recovery of the amount already paid shall not be made. But still the amount already paid has been recovered.

¶16

Stand of the respondent is that the pay fixation of the petitioner was under challenge before this court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the pay was revised on 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996. The pay of the petitioner was fixed in the higher scales considering fixation of his pay prior to the revision of the scale, which was already under challenge before this Court. It was on an undertaking furnished by the petitioner that he shall have no objection to the recovery of the excess payment after the final decision in the pending case. The submission is that what has been recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner is only the payment made in terms of fixation in the revised scale after the petitioner had given an undertaking.

¶17

COCP No.2249 of 2012 2

¶18

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the stand of the respondent, in my opinion, no case for contempt is made out. The petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondent regarding the recovery of the amount in view of the the undertaking furnished by him, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail his appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

¶19

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶20

March 11, 2013

¶21

sarita

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Krishan Kumar Dhull

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Krishan Kumar Dhull

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

Shobha Rani Vs Board of Governers etc.

Hem Lata Vs Board of Governors, Ch. Matu Ram Arya Govt.

Avtar Singh Basra Vs P.S. Aujla and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs Kamal Kumar Garg

Gurnam Singh and Anr. Vs M.P. Rai, IFS Md, Pb. Forest Development Punjab

Malkhan Singh Vs H. S Gujral and Anr.