High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 04 SHI CK 0112

Meera Devi And Others vs Union Of India & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 April 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J · Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition No.18, 26, 27 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 347 words

Ravi Malimath, J

1.

All these petitions have been filed on the ground that the judgment dated 9.10.2014, passed by this Court in LPA No.302/2011 alongwith connected matters in letter and spirit has not been complied.

2.

We are of the considered view that the same arise from the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the relief has been granted to the writ petitioners for payment of certain retiral benefits and calculations have also been made by the learned Single Judge in para­6 of the order. The Appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, however, set aside the observations made in para­6 of the said order. Para­6 pertained to the calculations made by the learned Single Judge.

3.

Under these circumstances, the respondents in pursuance to the order of the learned Division Bench, have passed an order with regard to certain payments, which the petitioners are entitled to. It is presently contended that what is ordered by the respondents is not in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge or by the learned Division Bench and that they are entitled for a greater amount what has been granted to them.

4.

Considering the contentions, we are of the view that these are not the issues to be gone into in these petitions, seeking execution of the order passed by this Court. There is no quantification of any amount by the learned Division Bench and what has been stated is to pay the requisite amount.

5.

In the opinion of the respondents, the amount paid is due to the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled for a greater amount. Therefore, we are of the view that the determination of quantification cannot be done by the Executing Court, which only has to be done by the Original Court that has passed the order.

6.

Suffice to hold that the directions of the Division Bench having been complied with, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in these petitions. Hence, the petitions are disposed off accordingly.