Smt. Maya Devi Sharma vs Ms. Vandita Kaul & Anr.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. However, none appeared for the applicant even in the revised call.

Contempt is a matter between the Court and the Contemnor; therefore, we proceed to consider the matter in the absence of learned counsel for the applicant.

The instant Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 1859/2010, whereby the Original Application was allowed with a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of family pension and other dues accrued to the applicant on account of the death of her husband, along with interest @ 6% from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pursuant to the notice issued in the present Contempt Petition, the respondents filed their first Compliance Affidavit on 03.09.2025. In Para-6 thereof, the respondents stated that in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, all pensionary benefits due to Smt. Maya Devi Sharma, wife of Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, had been processed and disbursed. The details of the payments made towards Final Retiring Gratuity, Leave Encashment, provisional pension arrears and family pension arrears, along with commencement of regular monthly family pension, have been furnished in the said Compliance Affidavit.

In response to the aforesaid Compliance Affidavit, the applicant raised an objection regarding the calculation of interest, contending that interest had not been calculated in accordance with the direction contained in the order dated 08.11.2023, i.e., @ 6% from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment.

Thereafter, the respondents filed a further Compliance Affidavit dated 28.07.2026, wherein it has been stated that, upon revising the calculations in accordance with the aforesaid direction, the following amounts were found payable towards interest: (i) Rs.8,67,375/-towards interest on accumulated family pension; (ii) Rs.80,666/-towards interest on Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG); and (iii) Rs.56,019/- towards interest on Leave Encashment.

It has further been stated in the said Compliance Affidavit that, out of the interest amount of Rs.8,67,375/- payable on accumulated family pension, an amount of Rs.97,281/- had already been paid along with the pension for February 2025 and a further amount of Rs.59,185/- was paid through APT 2.0 on 30.06.2026. After adjustment of the aforesaid amounts, the balance amount of Rs.7,10,909/- was credited to the account of the applicant through Cheque No. 020377 dated 09.07.2026.

In respect of interest on Leave Encashment, after adjustment of the amount of Rs.2,178/- already paid, the balance amount of Rs.53,841/- has been paid to the applicant. Similarly, in respect of interest on DCRG, after adjustment of the amount of Rs.3,136/-already paid, the balance amount of Rs.77,530/- has been paid to the applicant. The respondents have also placed the revised calculation sheets on record.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{9. Thus, from the aforesaid compliance affidavits and the revised} calculations placed on record, it appears that the respondents have reconsidered the calculation of interest pursuant to the objection raised by the applicant and have released the differential amounts found payable towards interest. The respondents have, accordingly, stated that the directions issued by this Tribunal have been complied with.

In view of the aforesaid compliance, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, consigned to record. Notices issued to the respondents stand discharged.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.