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


Kuldip Kaur v. Mohinder Singh Mangat - COCP-1065-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4816 (27 July 2006)

COCP No.1065 of 2005 -: 1 :-


COCP No.1065 of 2005

Date of decision: August 01, 2006.

Kuldip Kaur



Mohinder Singh Mangat & Ors.


Present: Shri G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Mai Bhago Education College for Women, Village and Post Office Ramgarh, District Ludhiana. Her services were terminated by the Management of the College, which action of theirs was challenged by her before the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. The said authority passed an order dated 15.3.2004 whereby the order terminating the petitioner's services was set aside and the management was directed to allow her to resume the duties and to pay her all the consequential benefits. The aforesaid order was further upheld by the State Colleges Tribunal, Punjab vide its order dated 11.1.2005 (Annexure P-1).

The above said orders, however, are stated to have been challenged before a civil court in which no interim relief has been granted to the management.

COCP No.1065 of 2005 -: 2 :-

Alleging defiance of these orders, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit of Mohinder Singh Mangat, President of Mai Bhago Educational Charitable Trust (Regd.), VPO Ramgarh has been filed which is taken on record. As per the stand taken in the affidavit, the petitioner has been reinstated and vide order dated 5.7.2006 (Annexure B), she has been allowed to join her duty.

It has also been stated that the petitioner has been paid arrears amounting to Rs.3,48,768/-.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, though is not disputing the above stated stand, however, contends that:- (i) the petitioner has not been paid arrears of salary as per the pay scale she is entitled to; and (ii) her provident fund account has also not been restored.

As far as the first contention is concerned, Learned Counsel for the respondents has disputed the petitioner's claim as, according to him, she has been paid salary in the pay scale in which she has appointed.

Be that as it may, it being a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in these proceedings, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise the same before an appropriate forum, if so advised.

As far as the contribution in the provident fund account is concerned, Learned Counsel for the respondents undertakes that as and when the petitioner deposits her share, the management shall also simultaneously contribute their share in that account.

Let the petitioner deposit her share of provident fund within a period of one month and upon depositing the same and showing a receipt thereof to the management, the respondent is directed to deposit COCP No.1065 of 2005 -: 3 :-

management share within 15 days thereafter.

In this view of the matter, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings which are accordingly dropped.

Rule discharged.

August 01, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]




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.