The contumpt petition was disposed of because the underlying objection to pensionary benefits was properly considered and rejected in a reasoned order. The Court held it could not evaluate the merits of the rejection under its contempt jurisdiction.
Contempt notices issued to the respondents are 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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLCON No. 25 of 2019 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, Advocate for the petitioners. |
|||
| Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1227 of 2012 filed by the petitioners was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits as per letter dated 02.08.2006. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, this contempt petition was filed. A compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 enclosing therein an order passed by Secretary, Secondary Education on 27.12.2018. By the said order, petitioners’ claim for pensionary benefits has been rejected, on the ground that his case is not covered by the letter dated 02.08.2006, as it, provided for pensionary benefits to Teachers of Government aided institution only, while petitioners served in an un-aided school namely, I.D.P.L Inter College, Veerbhadra, Rishieskh. Since petitioners’ claim for pensionary |
| benefits has been considered | and rejected |
|---|---|
| by a reasoned order and this | Court cannot |
| go into validity of the or | der rejecting |
| petitioners’ claim while exercis | ing contempt |
| jurisdiction, therefore, contem | pt petition is |
| closed. Contempt notices issu |
ed to the |
| respondents are hereby dischar However, petitioners shal |
ged. l be at liberty |
| to challenge the rejection | order dated |
| 27.12.2018 before appropriate | forum. |
| ( Man oj Ku m 15.11. Shubham |
ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2021 |
`
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can examine the validity of the rejection order for pensionary benefits in contempt proceedings.
How the contempt petition was disposed of.
Petitioner(s)
State
Manoj Kumar Triwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
