AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Kumar, J
Heard the parties.
Application is filed on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties
for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 11.11.2024 passed in CWJC No. 2282 of 2019, whereby the Court while disposing the writ petition has been pleased to direct as follows:-
“6. Having considered the submissions advanced on by the learned Advocates for the parties and taking note of the limited grievance of the petitioners, as also the fact that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners have already filed representations along with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 12692 of 2022, which are pending consideration before the concerned respondent, this Court has left with no option, but to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent
no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Suffice it to say that in case the claim of any of the petitioners find favour, admissible benefits must be paid to him/them.”
In compliance with the order of this Court, a show-cause affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 4. It is contended that upon superannuation of the petitioners, all the admissible retiral benefits payable under the Corporation has already been paid to them. It has further been clarified that so far with regard to payment of salary under 5th and 6th Pay Revision Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “PRC”) is concerned, the salary under the 5th PRC has been implemented under the Corporation with effect from 01.12.2015 prospectively vide office order-Memo No. 4944 dated 30.11.2015 and further the salary under the 6th PRC has been implemented under the Corporation with effect from 01.06.2017 vide Memo No. 1555 dated 16.05.2017.
Learned Advocate for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 further contended that 6th PRC scale is not applicable to the employees of Corporation, who superannuated prior to 01.06.2017. The claim of the petitioner was duly considered and the concerned respondent has come out with a reasoned and speaking order, the copy of which is placed as Annexure-A to the show-cause affidavit.
Having gone through the order, as contained in Memo No. 2744 dated 26.06.2025, passed by the Administrator-in-Chief, this Court does not find any reason to continue with the contempt proceeding. Accordingly, the same stands closed.