AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
CM APPL. 5096/2026
To a query from the Court as to the points on which clarification is required in our order dated 19 September 2024, Mr. Gautam has drawn our attention to paras 29 and 30, which read thus:
“29.However, the learned Tribunal has awarded respondent's reinstatement with full back wages, which cannot be permitted based upon the principle of 'no work no pay'. We hereby modify the order passed by the Tribunal, which is upheld by the learned Single Judge, to the extent and hold that the respondent shall be entitled to 50% back wages for the period he has not performed his duties.
30.Before parting with this judgment, we make it clear that this Court has not rendered any opinion upon the aspect of second Charge Sheet dated 06.12.1990, which was not subject matter before the lean1ed Tribunal or the leamed Single Bench.”
To our mind, the aforesaid paragraphs are clear and categorical. Mr. Gautam’s contention is that in subsequent contempt proceedings, the Court is taking a view which may not be in sync with the judgment that we have passed.
That cannot, to our mind, constitute a ground to issue a clarification to our judgment which is perfectly clear.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.