High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 12 UK CK 0048

Seema Rani vs R.K. Kunwar & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 654 Of 2018

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

8 paragraphs · 324 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner is serving as L.T. Grade Teacher in a Government School. She was granted increment on selection grade, on 17.10.2008, which was withdrawn vide order dated 06.11.2013 and order was passed for recovery of the excess payment, from the petitioner.

2.

Petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1933 of 2014, which was allowed and the order dated 06.11.2013, whereby benefit of increment on selection grade was withdrawn, and the consequential order dated 20.10.2014, which provided for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner, were quashed.

3.

In this contempt petition, petitioner has contended that since the respondents have not restored the additional increment given to her in the year 2008, therefore, the respondents are in contempt.

4.

A response- affidavit has been filed by Mr. R.K. Kunwar, Director, Secondary Education. In para no.10 of the response-affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner had not challenged the government orders dated 26.08.2013 and 07.10.2013, which are the basis for passing the orders challenged in the writ petition and he had challenged the orders dated 06.11.2013 and 20.10.2013, which are consequential to the aforesaid government orders.

5.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Writ Court had merely restrained respondents from making recovery of the excess amount paid to petitioner, but there was no direction to continue to pay the additional increment to the petitioner, which was withdrawn vide order dated 06.11.2013.

6.

This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. Since there was no direction issued to respondents to pay additional increment to the petitioner, which was withdrawn in the year 2013, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, non-payment of the amount of increment on selection grade to the petitioner, does not amount to willful disobedience of the order passed by Writ Court.

7.

In such view of the matter, the Contempt Petition is closed. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.