Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. S.K. SOOD versus SHRI GIAN PARKASH CHOPRA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. S.K. Sood v. Shri Gian Parkash Chopra & Ors. - COCP-894-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4565 (21 July 2006)

COCP No.894 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.894 of 2005

Date of decision: July 27, 2006.

Dr. S.K. Sood

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri Gian Parkash Chopra & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri S.K. Singla, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, who retired as a Lecturer in Sanskrit from S.L.

Bawa DAV College, Batala on 30.11.2002, filed CWP No.6325 of 2004 for the release of his retiral benefits and other payments. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.4.2004 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision on the justice demand notice, which the petitioner had already served upon the respondents, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months and after granting him an opportunity of being heard. It was also directed that if any relief is found grantable to the petitioner, the same shall be passed on to him within one month thereafter.

Though, the petitioner was paid arrears of provident fund amounting to Rs.9,54,290/- on 26.6.2004, followed by another payment of Rs.3,50,000/- on 13.8.2004 towards arrears of gratuity (which, according to the petitioner, is not full and correct payment), no decision was taken on justice demand notice served upon the respondents by the petitioner, in COCP No.894 of 2005 -: 2 :-

which certain other claims were also made by him.

The petitioner accordingly filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit has been filed by Dr. S.K. Arora, Principal, S.L. Bawa DAV College, Batala. Along with the said affidavit, a copy of the order dated 28.7.2005 has been appended as Annexure R-1 vide which, according to the respondents, the petitioner's claim has been decided in terms of the directions issued by this Court.

Having regard to the fact that a speaking order, as directed by this Court, has since been passed by the respondents, though, it appears desirable to drop these proceedings at this stage, however, it is apparent that the respondents, for no valid reason, have failed to comply with the directions within the time granted to them.

Learned Counsel for the respondents tenders unconditional apology on their behalf for the delay caused in passing of the order, referred to above.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to all the attending circumstances, especially the fact that the petitioner retiree, has been unnecessarily forced to initiate these proceedings, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the order dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure R-1) before an appropriate forum, if so advised. The respondents, however, are directed to compensate the petitioner by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs, which shall be paid to him within a period of two months.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 27, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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