← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/550/2016disposed off

Suman Khare v. Ajay Agrawal

2016-11-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava1 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 550 of 2016 • Suman Khare S/o Shri Prem Narayan Khare, Aged About 62 Years R/o H I G-53, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• Ajay Agrawal Presently Working As Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ................. (Contemnor) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 29/11/2016 1.

The petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2016 passed in WPS No. 652 of 2016 by submitting that even though the amount, as ordered to be paid by the petitioner vide memo dated 13.07.2016, has already been deposited, the pensionary benefits have not been finalized nor released.

2.

This Court has directed the respondent to count the past services rendered by the petitioner under the SADA, Korba, for the purposes of computing the qualifying service for grant of pension. 3.

It appears that in implementation of the order of the Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit the contribution in respect of the said period for which direction has been issued and the petitioner has deposited the amount also. The contempt petition has been filed for the reasons that till date the matter of pensionary benefits have not been finalized nor released, which is contempt of the Court order. Though there may be some delay in finalizing of pension case of the petitioner, considering that the respondent has already proceed to comply with the order of the Court and the petitioner has already deposited the amount, at present no contempt is made out. However, before parting with the case, it is observed that as the petitioner was retired 11 months before all efforts should be made to finalize the matter and release the amount of pensionary benefits to the petitioner as early as possible. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra