High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/1296/2016disposed of

Piara Singh v. Rakesh Sharma And ANR

2017-02-01Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

COCP 1296/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:01.02.2017 Piara Singh ............Petitioner vs Rakesh Sharma and another .............Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Arshdeep Singh Bhullar,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj,DAG Punjab for respondents. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral) Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired as Upvaid from the Department of Ayurveda,Government of Punjab. He filed CWP 14512/2014 for grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order 30.4.2015 with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pay interest on the delayed payments @ 8% per annuam from the date it fell due till its realization within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

Alleging non-compliance of the order dated 30.4.2015 instant contempt petition has been filed.

Upon notice, reply by way of affidavit of Dr.Krishan Kumar Jolly, District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Ludhiana has been filed stating therein that interest amounting to Rs.31360/- on delayed payment of GPF and another sum of Rs.40,333/- as interest on delayed payment of DCRG stands paid to the petitioner vide pay order dated 6.1.2017(R-2/1) and thus Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2017.02.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP 1296/2016 compliance of this Court's order dated 30.4.2015 has been made. At the time of hearing, it is averred that interest on delayed payment of leave encashment still remains to be paid by the respondents and thus contempt is made out.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, no further action is warranted in the instant contempt petition. Reply by way of affidavit was filed by respondents in Court on 13.1.2017 asserting full compliance of the order dated 30.4.2015, upon which counsel for the petitioner had sought time to seek instructions. Except bald assertions made today, no counter to the said reply has been filed till today.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition.

Rule is discharged.

01.02.2017 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Rajinder Parshad Joshi 2017.02.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document