Dtc v. Mamraj And ANR

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2941/2011 & CM APPL. 2747/2018 DTC ..... Petitioner Through: None.

versus MAMRAJ ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Raj Kr.Gupta, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R

% 24.05.2018 CM APPL. 2747/2018 1.

Despite service of the notice none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner had challenged the impugned award dated 25.03.2010 by which the Industrial Adjudicator has held that the punishment of stopping of next two increments without cumulative effect imposed on the respondent vide order dated 10.09.2007 was illegal and unjustified and the respondent is entitled for refund of the amount withheld on account of stoppage of two increments.

3.

While considering the stay application being CM APPL. 6236/2011, the petitioner was directed vide order dated 28.10.2013 to deposit the awarded amount with the Registry of the Court. In compliance of the said order, a sum of Rs.17,802/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of the Court.

4.

Since this Writ Petition (C) 2941/2011 was dismissed on 27.04.2017, the amount lying with the Registry of the Court be released to the respondent with accrued interest thereon.

5.

Application is disposed of accordingly.

6.

Dasti.

VINOD GOEL, J.

MAY 24, 2018 dkb