AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter comes up on an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the Legal Representatives of petitionerâ€"Durga Shankar
who has expired on 01.05.2018. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed. Petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/5 are brought on record as LRs
of the deceased petitionerâ€"Durga Shankar. Amended cause title already filed, is taken on record. Non-compliance with the judgment date
05.10.2017 in SBCWP No.2989/1998 is alleged in this petition.
By the judgment in issue, this court set aside the order of punishment of termination of service visited upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority
as affirmed by the appellate authority and he was held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits of continuity of service, seniority,
fixation of salary etc. for the intervening period. But taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was being reinstated after several years
following his termination of service, the court directed that back wages only to an extent of 25% be paid which were however to be calculated after
re-fixation of salary of the petitioner under the revised pay scales from time to time and also taking into consideration the petitioner entitlement to
selection scale.
Mr.Sudarshan Kumar Laddha, counsel for the petitioner submitted that albeit the court had directed that the order dated 05.10.2017 be complied
within three months of its passing, yet it has apparently been complied with under order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kota
(which is taken on record) after an inordinate delay. He further submitted that aside of the fact that the respondents expanded about 11 months in
passing the order in compliance, the relief remains a paper relief and actual payment has not been made over to the petitioner no.1/1-Rangbel the
widow of the petitioner.
Dr.A.S. Khangarot, Addl. GC. counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 28.02.1996 and reinstated
under the court’s order dated 05.10.2017. To work out consequential benefits an exercise was to be undertaken for a period of 21 years. He
submitted that there was no intent to delay compliance with the order of the court. Just the nature of compliance took time. It has now been done vide
order dated 05.10.2017 and the petitioner’s widow will be given the benefits as directed by this court and followed in terms of the order dated
12.09.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kota.
He submitted that the actual payment in terms of the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kota will be made over within
four weeks to the petitioner no.1/1-Rangbel the widow of the petitioner late Durga Shankar as stated in court by petitioner’s counsel subject to No
Objection Certificate/ undertaking to the effect by the other LRs of the deceased petitioner.
In view of the submission made, the respondents are held firm to the statement of Dr.A.S. Khangarot, Addl. GC. on their behalf. The actual payment
pursuant to order dated 12.09.2018 under the hand of Superintendent of Police, Kota be made over to the petitioner no.1/1-Rangbel the widow of the
petitioner Durga Shankar within a period of four weeksâ€"subject to No Objection Certificate/ undertaking from the Lrs of the deceased petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. In the event of due payment as per letter dated 12.09.2018 under the hand of the Superintendent of Police,
Kota not being made within four weeks, the widow of the petitioner shall be free to move an application for revival of this contempt petition.