Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ved Parkash v. G. Vajralingum - COCP-126-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4315 (18 July 2006)

COCP No.126 of 2006 -: 1 :-


COCP No.126 of 2006

Date of decision: July 24, 2006.

Ved Parkash



Dr. G. Vajralingum & Anr.


Present: Shri B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Shri Pardeep Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner had filed CWP No.14771 of 2004 for the release of his retiral benefits. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents, "to pay the entire amount due to the petitioner within a period of three months".

Alleging non-compliance, the petitioner ha filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause notice, separate affidavits have been filed by respondents No.1 and 2.

In para 2 of his affidavit dated 27.2.2006, respondent No.2 has stated that the entire payment of Rs.6,06,982/-, as per the details given therein, has been made to the petitioner.

COCP No.126 of 2006 -: 2 :-

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was entitled for a little more than Rs.6.19 lacs. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest also on the delayed payments.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the entire amount due to the petitioner was ordered to be released by this court on 9.8.2005 within a period of three months and the petitioner has been made payment of Rs.3,40,407/- on 25.2.2006, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i)the petitioner shall be paid interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,40,407/- for the period from 1.11.2005 till the actual payment thereof; (ii) if there is any other retiral benefit which, according to the petitioner, has not been paid, liberty is granted to him to make a representation to the respondents within a period of one month from today and if any such representation is made by him, the same shall be considered objectively and disposed of within a period of one month of its receipt.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 24, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


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.