Dismissed

Smt Parwati Devi v. B S Singh and Others

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2015CCP/436/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against respondents for alleged non-compliance with a prior direction to pay pension and gratuity. The court held that substantial compliance occurred and directed the petitioner to seek interest computation in a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach civil court for interest computation; notices discharged; petition dismissed.

Smt Parwati Devi Vs B S Singh and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.436/2012 (Smt. Parwati v. B.S. Singh & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order: 11/09/2015

¶6

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶7

Mr. N.K. Singhal, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG, for the respondents.

¶8

A Single Judge of this court decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4638/2007 on 25.4.2011 and directed the respondents to grant pension and gratuity to the petitioner. Operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

¶9

“In the instant case this Court would like to observe that since the petitioner is presently posted in the office of District Ayurvedic Office, Bharatpur in the cadre of Class-IV it will be appropriate to send the papers at Bharatpur office to comply with the formalities and after meeting out all necessary objections, a letter may be sent to the Pension and Pensionary Welfare Department for release of family pension. Since, there is no dispute so far as the merits of the matter is concerned and her retiral dues of her husband could not have been paid because of procedural lapses this Court consider appropriate to direct the respondent to meet out all objections of the Pension & Pensionary Welfare Department within two months and further directed to release all retiral dues, including pension and gratuity which are admissible under law of her husband shall be computed and paid to her within one months thereafter.

¶10

With directions the writ petition is disposed of. If the respondent fails to make payment of her retiral dues within a period as directed (supra) she will be entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereafter till actual payment.”

¶11

The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that direction given by the learned Single Judge has not been complied with. Hence, the

¶12

¶13

respondents are liable to be convicted and punished for contempt of this court.

¶14

Shri Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that pension and gratuity and all retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner.

¶15

Shri N.K. Singhal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that an amount of Rs.3,03,144/- was remitted in the bank account of the petitioner on 30.8.2011. Thus, counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that interest @ 6% in consonance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not been paid.

¶16

A perusal of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge which has been reproduced above reveal that in case the retiral benefits were not sanctioned within two months from the date of order and not paid within one months thereafter then only the petitioner was entitled to payment of the interest. In the concluding portion, it has been specifically stated “thereafter till actual payment”.

¶17

Taking the date of order to be reckoning date for computation of the retiral benefits, respondents had to pay the amount upto 25.7.2011. Delay of one month and six days and non-payment of interest thereof cannot be said to be breach of the order of this court. As this court while exercising contempt of court jurisdiction has to only see substantial compliance of the order and the nitty-gritty of the order and the payment of penny less or penny more is not to be counted by this court. The petitioner, if

¶18

so advised, may approach the civil court for computation of the amount of interest.

¶19

In view of liberty granted above, no interference is called for in this contempt petition. It is hereby, disposed of. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

¶20

Govind/-

¶21

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶22

Govind Sharma, Sr.PA

Smt Parwati Devi v. B S Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parwati Devi v. B S Singh and Others

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

Sunil Kumar Vs State Personnel Departmentors

Mohammad Ali Vs Rihana Bano

Haricharan and Anr. Vs State

Asruddeen Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Navneet Kumar and Ors. Vs Secretary Secondary Edu and Ors.

Jinesh Kumar Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.