AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kumar, J.—This contempt petition is filed complaining of disobedience of the order dated 19th August 2011 passed in W.P.Nos.11913-914/2011.
The operative portion of the order, which is said to have been disobeyed reads as under:-
Insofar as the payment of arrears are concerned, the petitioner has remained without any pay over time and it is because of the controversy as to who is liable to bear the obligation. This question which would be the subject matter of the connected writ petitions which are on board, it is therefore appropriate if the respondents 5 and 6 who are the petitioners in W.P.318911-31892/2011 shall initially pay 50% of the amount that may be due to the petitioner up to date, without prejudice to recover the same, if in the event it is ultimately found that the Department shall bear the obligation of payment of the same. The Department however shall pay the petitioner from the date the order of dismissal was revoked and was deemed to have been reinstated. Petitioners in W. P. 31891-31892/2011 are granted one week''s time to pay the arrears as directed.
In view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 11913-914/2011 is deemed to have been reinstated, it is the obligation on the department to pay the salary and other allowances to the petitioner pending further proceedings. A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.Nos.31891-892/2011, who is the person and who is liable to pay salary to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the date of revocation of the order of dismissal. Any interim order passed in such a writ petition is to be confined to the subject matter of writ petition. An interim order in that writ petition cannot traverse beyond the subject matter of the proceedings. Now the respondents 5 and 6 are directed to pay 50% of the amount. Department is also directed to pay subsequent to revocation of the order of dismissal. It is not in dispute that respondents 5 and 6 have paid 50% of the amount as directed by the Court, which is due to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the date of rectification of the dismissal order. Taking advantage of the word ''up to date'', the petitioner is contending that the respondents 5 and 6 are liable to pay the arrears up to date. The word up to date as could be make out from the entire order is a mistake. It is submitted that an application is filed for rectification of the said mistake. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that there is no contempt. Accordingly, proceedings are dropped.