Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Sahun Rai v. Dharm Raj Singh And Another - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1094 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 1483 (29 January 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 30.

Civil. Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1094 of 2002.

Ram Sahun Rai                       Vs.    Dharam Raj Singh and others.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

In this contempt petition, notices were issued on 24.4.2002.  In the counter affidavit of Sri Dharam Raj Singh, Sachiv/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghazipur, it is stated in para 10 that the  order of Hon. Apex Court dated 21.2.2001 by which the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the  judgment of Ist Additional District Judge, Ghazipur was confirmed, with a direction that the plaintiff would be allowed his continuity of service  and any other benefit, but will not be entitled to salary from the date of his termination on 15.4.1987 till the order of the lower appellate court dated 9.9.1992, was complied with and that the petitioner was paid Rs. 5,33,880.97 on 19.10.2001.  A further amount of Rs. 11,109/- was paid on 5.7.2002 towards the earned leave for the period 2001-02.  In para 13 and 18 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had not worked from August 1985, till the date of termination and as such he is not entitled to the payment for that period.  He was drawing more than  Rs. 2,000/- and as such not entitled for bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act.

The petitioner is aggrieved for non-payment of salary from August, 1985 to 18.4.1987; bonus for the year 2002-03 and for one increment which he claims to be entitled counting his services of the year 1985-86.

Ordinarily if the suit is decreed, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the execution Court.  However, looking to the  facts and circumstances of the case, that the matter is pending in this Court for the last three years, it would be appropriate to give end to the dispute.

The observations of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 21.2.2001 allowing the civil appeal No. 3162 of 1997 are quoted as below:

"We, however, further hold that though the plaintiff would be allowed his continuity of service and any other benefits, flowing from such continuity of service, but he will not be entitled to any salary


from the date of his termination on 15.4.1987 till the judgment of the lower Appellate Court dated 9.9.1992."

The Apex Court did not give any direction  with regard to payment of any arrear of salary prior to 15.4.1987 specially for the period for which the petitioner did not work and was found to be absent, and that the notices were sought to be served upon him by publication.

The Apex Court did not give benefit other than the benefit of continuity of service.     The period prior to 15.4.1987 was  not spent on duty.   It  is as such  not required to be counted  for salary or increments.  There is sufficient material that the petitioner was drawing more than Rs.2,000/-, and was as such not entitled to the bonus.

The contempt petition is dismissed.

Dt. 29.1.2007.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.