This court dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order mandating payment of retiral benefits. The court held that substantial compliance was made and that quantum disputes require regular trial proceedings, not contempt adjudication.
The contempt petition was dismissed and the notices were discharged.
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.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1131/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1131/2010
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1892/2009 (Smt. Suresh Kumari Sharma Vs. Ashok Sampatram & Ors.)
Date of Order : 03.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, husband of the petitioner. Mr. Kedar Nath, ALR, Legal with Mr. Gauri Shankar, Addl. BEEO, for the respondents. BY THE COURT
Non-compliance of the order dated 27.08.2010, passed by this Court, has been alleged in this petition. Therein this Court had declared the petitioner as voluntary retired from service effective 02.10.2008 and consequently quashed the disciplinary proceeding initiated against her under the charge-sheet dated 21.07.2009 i.e. subsequent to the superannuation of the petitioner. In the circumstances, it was directed that treating the petitioner's retirement effective 02.10.2008, she be allowed all retiral benefits along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. under Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996').
Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that all retiral benefits and interest thereon due to the petitioner were paid when finally on 25.04.2012 a sum of Rs.1,91,878- was deposited in the petitioner SSBJ Bank Account No.51073354536. It has been submitted that the Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bayana vide his letter dated
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1131/2010
2
03.04.2013 has informed the District Education Officer, Primary Education that the petitioner has been paid arrears of pension, gratuity amount as also interest thereon @ 9% p.a. Further pension of Rs.6,282/- was also being paid to the petitioner.
Rejoinder to the reply has been filed and it has been submitted that a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- odd is yet outstanding and payable under the order dated 27.08.2010 passed this Court and non-payment thereof constitutes contempt.
In my considered opinion, in the facts on record, substantial compliance with the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by this Court has been made. It is not evident that the respondents have deliberately and malafidely acted perversely to deny the petitioner her rights under order dated 27.08.2010 and have therefore deliberately short paid the amount alleged due to the petitioner. If there is a dispute as to short payment of amount due to the petitioner, the petitioner would be free to take proceeding in accordance with law before an appropriate forum. The dispute as to the quantum of money payable to the petitioner under the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by this Court cannot be addressed in this contempt petition as it would entail taking of evidence, crossexamination etc, which would only be appropriate in a regular trial.
Consequently, the contempt as alleged in the petition is without substance.
Dismissed. Notices discharged.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial compliance with the order dated 27.08.2010 regarding the payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner can be said to constitute an act of contempt.
Whether the dispute regarding the quantum of arrears due under the order can be adjudicated in a contempt petition.
Suresh Kumari Sharma
Ashok Sampatram & Ors.
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
