Disposed

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. Purshottam Agarwal and Another

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2014CCP/1561/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil contempt petition, the Court disposed of the matter by directing the department to pay financial benefits to the petitioners within six weeks, relying on a department letter dated 16.08.2013, unless steps were taken to neutralize the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to make over financial benefits to petitioners within six weeks from today unless the department neutralizes the order dated 16.08.2013.

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. Vs Purshottam Agarwal and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1561/2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANT AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1561/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5368/2011 (Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Purushottam Agarwal & Anr.)

¶6

Date of Order : 10.11.2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶8

Mr. Pradeep Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, AAG for the respondents. BY THE COURT

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of

¶10

the order passed by this Court on 07.09.2012, compliance therewith has indeed been made vide order dated 16.08.2013 under the hand of the Chief Engineer (Admn.), Public Health & Engineering Department, Jaipur. He submits that the order dated 16.08.2013 records as directed by this Court that the petitioners would be paid actual benefits from 15.04.2007 aside of national benefit to which they were entitled. However, the said actual benefit has not been paid to the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 16.08.2013 has already been annexed to the reply to the contempt petition.

¶11

Mr. Abhinav Sharma, AAG who appears in other connected matters on behalf of the respondents-contemnors has sought one day's time to verify the matter and make submissions before this Court.

¶12

A perusal of the order dated 16.08.2013 bear out the

¶13

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1561/2012

¶14

(2)

¶15

submissions of the counsel for the petitioners. It transpires clearly therefrom that it has been directed that the petitioners would be entitled to actual benefit as Store Munshi effective 15.04.2007 and the sanction of the finance department for the same had also been received on 30.07.2013.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts on record and the document dated 16.08.2013 being a document of the department itself, I find no justification for adjourning the matter for the learned AAG taking instructions in regard thereto. Quite obviously instructions to the AAG cannot be contrary to the department's own letter dated 16.08.2013.

¶17

Consequently, the contempt petition is disposed of with the direction that the financial benefit to the petitioners in terms of the department's own letter dated 16.08.2013 in compliance with the order dated 07.09.2012, passed by this Court be made over to the petitioners within six weeks from today unless in the meantime the department takes any steps in accordance with law to neutralize the said order dated 16.08.2013.

Notices discharged.

(ALOK SHARMA), J

MS/-

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. Purshottam Agarwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. Purshottam Agarwal and Another

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

Lalit Kumar Sharma Vs Shri Shashank Shekhar and Others

Pitambar Singh Vs Shri Bhaskar a Sawant and Another

Goverdhan Lal Gupta Vs Ram Lubhaya and Others

Ramji Lal Yadav and Anr. Vs Dr Purshottam Agarwal and Another

Narendra Kumar Vs Shri Bhaskar a Sawant and Others

Firm Banshiram Kartarchand Anr. Vs Shri Inder Chand Agarwal