Dismissed

Shri Shiv Ratan Sharma v. P.K. Purwar

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2021WCP/601/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed against BSNL officials. The petitioner alleged disobedience of an interim order directing medical reimbursement. The court noted that the respondents had paid the claimed amount during the pendency of the proceedings, so no case for contempt was made out.

What did the court decide?

Content petition dismissed; no case for initiating contempt proceedings as payment was made during pendency.

Shri Shiv Ratan Sharma Vs P.K. Purwar — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2) [WCP-601/2020]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 601/2020

¶4

Shri Shiv Ratan Sharma S/o Late Shri Budh Mal Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, By Caste Brahmin Residing At C-117, Nehru Nagar, Iiird Extension Jodhpur- 342008 (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

P.k. Purwar, Chairman And Managing Director Bsnl 3Rd Floor Bharat Sanchar Bhawan Janpath New Delhi- 110001

¶8

O.p. Gupta, Chief General Manager Bsnl, Rajasthan Telcom Circle Jaipur- 302001

¶9

N. Ram, General Manager Telecom District, Bsnl Subhash Nagar, Jodhpur- 342008

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Joshi through VC For Respondent(s) : --

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

07/01/2021

¶15

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18553/2018. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶16

“In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 19.9.18 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, is set aside. The original application preferred by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement submitted as aforesaid, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner's claim is not

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[WCP-601/2020]

¶19

reimbursed in full, he will not be denied the reimbursement to the extent of the claim for which he would have become entitled had he undergone the surgery in recognized/empanelled hospital of BSNL. The amount of the medical reimbursement to be determined as aforesaid shall be paid to the petitioner forthwith. If the respondents fail to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner within the period of four weeks, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. No order as to costs.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.1,31,523/- on 28.08.2020 towards claim for medical reimbursement and interest amount has also been paid on 29.12.2020.

¶21

In this view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the present contempt petition. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding short payment of claim for medical reimbursement, it will be open for him to make representation to the respondents for reimbursement of the remaining amount.

¶22

No case for initiating the contempt proceedings at this stage is made out.

¶23

The contempt petition is therefore dismissed.

¶24

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶25

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶26

51-AnilKC/-

Shri Shiv Ratan Sharma v. P.K. Purwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shiv Ratan Sharma v. P.K. Purwar

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

Mangi Lal Vs State

Brijesh Singh Vs State

Fusion Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devendra Bhushan Gupta

Pradeep Vs State

Kala Singh @ Naresh Vs State

M/S a and J Sisodia Mineral LLP Vs Shri D.B. Gupta