In a contempt case regarding alleged violation of an interim order directing payment of subsistence allowance, the Court found no willful violation as the excess payment was an inadvertent error. The Contempt Case was closed without proceeding.
Contempt Case closed; no proceedings against respondents for violating the interim order.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.1218 of 2007
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violatio the order of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.24317 of 2005 in W.P.No.19104 2005 dated 06.04.2006, whereby this Court passed an interim or directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitione accordance with Section 47(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops Establishment Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). The petitioner alleges that subsistence allowance has not been paid.
A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been f on behalf of the respondents. In the additional counter affidavit it is sta that the petitioner’s salary was fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.94 da 28.02.2004, and the petitioner was drawing Rs.4,600/- towards salary; G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 29.06.2005, G.O.Ms.No.94 was modified and, as the revised Government Order, paid secretaries were entitled to Rs.7,00 per month; though the subsequent Government Order was not applica the respondent Society had erroneously applied the same and h accordingly, paid subsistence allowance from time to time; and they w initiating steps to rectify the inadvertent error by re-fixing the subsistence allowance. The respondent would submit t basing on the last drawn salary of the petitioner i.e., Rs.4,600/-, he entitled to Rs.1,01,200/- as per the byelaws of the Society, but he w erroneously paid Rs.1,71,100/- for the period from 27.08.2004 31.03.2007; even if the provisions of the Act were applicable, the petitio is entitled to Rs.1,67,800/-, and that he has been paid in excess of what is entitled to under the provisions of the Act towards subsiste allowance.
It is evident, therefore, that the order of this Court aforementio has not been violated, much less willfully and deliberately. I see reason, therefore, to proceed against the respondents under the Conte
of Courts Act, 1971.
The Contempt Case is accordingly closed.
___________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 27.08.2012 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed willful and deliberate violation of the interim order directing payment of subsistence allowance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
