AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
WPSS No. 2862 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was disposed of in terms of the order dated 6.11.2012 passed in WPSS No. 570 of 2006 and WPSS
No. 718 of 2006 (decided by a common judgment). Operative portion of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 570 of 2006 & WPSS No. 718 of 2006
is reproduced below:-
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the material placed before me, it is difficult at the distant point of time to
allow switch over with these materials. But learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain materials which purport to show that some persons
who are similarly placed and situated with that of the petitioner have already been granted benefit of switching over to pension scheme. I think that
this material should be examined by the respondents authorities. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner taking note of the material which might be placed by the petitioner before them. Accordingly, a comprehensive
representation shall be made by the petitioner enclosing the material which has been placed before me. The authority concerned will give personal
hearing and examine the matter whether any other persons who are similarly placed and situated have been granted switching over benefit or not, and
after upon inquiry, if the authorities concerned find that switching over benefit has been granted to other similarly placed and situated persons, such
benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of this order.â€
Petitioner earlier filled Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2020 alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 2862 of 2017.
A compliance affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in the said contempt petition enclosing therewith copy of the order dated 5.02.2020
passed by Chief General Manager (Administration), Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Based on the compliance affidavit and also the
statement made by learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Siddhartha Sah, appearing for the petitioner, the contempt petition was closed by coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2020.
Petitioner has now again filed this contempt petition with the allegation that the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 2862 of 2017 has not been
complied with. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two letters issued by the Authorities of UPSRTC in
support of his contention that no compliance of the judgment of this Court has been made and the Authorities of UPSRTC are passing on the burden
to others.
Annexure No. 6 to the contempt petition is the communication dated 05.12.2021 issued by Regional Manager, Bareilly to Finance Controller,
UPSRTC, Lucknow. By the said letter Finance Controller was requested to release a sum of Rs.8,82,881/- for payment of pension to the petitioner.
Thereafter Regional Manager, Bareilly issued another letter dated 22.05.2021 to the Finance Controller, making same request, which is annexure No.
9 to the contempt petition.
From the perusal of these communications, it appears that benefit of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 2862 of 2017 is yet to be given to the
petitioner.
However, in view of the admission made on behalf of the petitioner before the coordinate Bench of this Court, dealing with Contempt Petition No. 2
of 2020 that compliance of the judgment has been made, this Court declines to issue notice to the opposite party on this contempt petition.
Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate application in Contempt Petition No. 2 of
2020.