High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Lt. Col. K.B.L. Sharma v. Shekhar Dutt & Ors - COCP-478-2006  RD-P&H 3101 (12 May 2006)
COCP No.478 of 2006 in
LPA No.497 of 1992 in
CWP No.8490 of 1991
Date of decision:21.4.2006
Lt. Col. K.B.L. Sharma
Shekhar Dutt and others
Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed for punishing the contemners, for intentionally, knowingly and willfully violating the order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure-C.1) passed by this Court in CWP No.8490 of 1991 and affirmed vide order dated 13.7.2005 (Annexure-C.2) in LPA No.497 of 1992. In terms of the order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure-C.1), the following directions were issued:- "For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 20.10.1987 (Annexure-P.3) and 26.04.1991/ 01.05.1991 (Annexure-P.11) are hereby quashed. Recovery of the money, it has already been affected vide order, Annexure- COCP No.478/2006
P.11, would be refunded to the petitioner. Needless to mention that by quashing of the order, Annexure-P.3 and Annexure-P.11, all consequential benefits would flow to the petitioner.
However, there will be no order as to costs." Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance with the said order only the amount that was recovered has been refunded. However, the consequential benefits which flow to the petitioner have not been granted. It is contended that the petitioner has since retired from service and he is entitled to retrospective promotion from the due date as he was not promoted on account of the order of punishment of severe displeasure passed on 20.10.1987. Therefore, it is contended that there has been a violation of the order of this Court.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that had the petitioner not been imposed the punishment of severe displeasure on 20.10.1987 he would have been promoted to the next higher rank. However, now that the petitioner has retired on 31.12.1992 he is entitled for retrospective promotion. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner through his counsel had sent a legal notice dated 23.2.2006 (Annexure-P.4). In response to the said legal notice, the Military Secretary, Branch Army Headquarters on 8.3.2006 (Annexure-C.5) replied that an earlier notice had been addressed by the petitioner to the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the Army Staff. The same was replied vide letter dated 4.11.1992. The copy of the earlier legal notice and the reply were enclosed with the letter dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure- C.5). The petitioner has withheld the filing of the said legal notice that was COCP No.478/2006
earlier sent as also the reply that has been enclosed with the letter dated 8.3.2006. The withholding of the same would show that the petitioner has tried to suppress some material facts from this Court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. However, whatever consequential benefits that may be due to the petitioner in consequence of the order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure-C.1) the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same by availing other remedies in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, the contempt petition is dismissed.
April 21, 2006. (S.S. Saron)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.