RAM KISHAN Vs. TARUN BAJAJ
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 17,2014
RAM KISHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
Tarun Bajaj
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHHOTU RAM V. URVASHI GULATI AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED TO]
LT COL K D GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAKAPALU RAJA RAMA GOPALA RAO VS. NARAGANI GOVINDA SEHARARAO [REFERRED TO]
V G NIGAM VS. KEDAR NATH GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NIAZ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES VS. S MOOSA [REFERRED TO]
MRITYUNJOY DAS VS. SAYED HASIBUR RAHAMAN [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RATAN SARKAR VS. HIRAK GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PAPER KAMGAR UNION VS. DHARAM GODHA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MD ILLIYAS [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. GEETA BHAT [REFERRED TO]
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT P LTD VS. C E S C [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEO ALIAS SAHDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD VS. TUNCAY ALANKUS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR VS. S. S. KOTHARI [LAWS(CAL)-2021-4-51] [REFERRED TO]ISHAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. MUKUL SINGHAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA TRADING COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SUDH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-190] [REFERRED TO]
SUMEET AGENCIES VS. SONIA MEENA [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION VS. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI RATHI VS. GAJENDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND VS. DHARMESH S. JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI VS. HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
T.S.KALADHAR UPADHYAYA VS. KUSUMA KUMARI [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-782] [REFERRED TO]
M ALEXANDER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-152] [REFERRED TO]
ISHFAQ TANTRAY VS. KHALID JAHANGIR [LAWS(J&K)-2023-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHANKAR VS. RAJEEV PANDEY, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/CITY MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
SONAL AASHISH MADHAPARIYA VS. AASHISH HARJIBHAI MADHAPARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-518] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED CHURCH OF NORTHERN INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION VS. PRADIP THOMAS PARMAR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-160] [REFERRED]
HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED VS. PRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM VS. JAGAN NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD VS. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. RAM PAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-368] [REFERRED TO]
DR.RAM KISHOR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
M. SHASHIDHARAN VS. K. BHOOPALA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-366] [REFERRED TO]
ARIYANAYAGIPURAM HINDU NADAR URAVINMURAI COMMITTEE VS. S M MEERAMOHAIDEEN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-201] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANKAR PATHAK VS. ASHISH GOEL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
CHINCHWAD DEVASTHAN TRUST VS. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
NATVARLAL DEVCHANDBHAI KABRAWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-2704] [REFERRED TO]
KESHSON VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-336] [REFERRED]
JOGINDER PAL VS. AMIT KASHYAP [LAWS(HPH)-2022-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
U.N.BORA, EX.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VS. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAMA SINGH VS. BADRI NARAYAN SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
SARANAN SAHA VS. SRIDHAR PRAMANIK [LAWS(CAL)-2023-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
ABHILASH CHAND AND OTHERS VS. SANJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
PWD & FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION VS. POONAM CHAND PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN ANANDRAO PENDAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-219] [REFERRED TO]
N. PRATEEP KUMAR VS. M. JAGADEESH CHANDRA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2022-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA CHAND JAIN VS. JAIDEEP GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE MATHEW VS. SATYAJEET RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-160] [REFERRED TO]
R JAIKRISHNAN VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR G [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN CHADHA VS. SANJAY ARORA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
HUKUM CHAND DESWAL VS. SATISH RAJ DESWAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
FINANCIAL SERVICE EXECUTIVES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. S.K. ROY AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2016-9-151] [REFERRED TO]
RATHI ISPAT LTD VS. INOX AIR PRODUCT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH S; R SATHYA NARAYANAN VS. STATE OF KERAL [LAWS(KER)-2016-9-79] [REFERRED]
SUMAN CHADHA AND ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-261] [REFERRED TO]
SONALI BHATIA VS. ABHIVANSH NARANG [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-142] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SINGH VS. RANJEET SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-256] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT CHANDRA VS. HARISH GIDWANI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2024-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPBHAI MASRIBHAI VAJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-328] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PASRICHA VS. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SANKALP SHARMA VS. KRITIKA KAUSHIK [LAWS(DLH)-2024-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF COAL ASSOCIATION (ORGANIZATION) VS. SHRI PARTHA SARATHI BHATTACHARYYA, CHAIRMAN, COAL INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH VS. G. PATTANAIK [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED VS. IN THE MATTER OF : INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2024-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
S P MANGLA VS. SUSHIL KUMAR SAXENA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-377] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant that the respondents, who are alleged contemnors herein, have wilfully violated the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 4985 of 2012 as the respondents failed to pay all consequential benefits of service as directed and thus, the respondents should be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and further, to direct the contemnors to implement the order in its true spirit and fix his pension according to the post of Joint Secretary (Legal) and provide all its retirement benefits.
(2.)Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Nigam') was compulsorily retired vide an order dated 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004 and during its pendency, he reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2006. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2009 quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2003 but did not award the back wages to the applicant for the period he was out of job. The Nigam filed LPA No. 646 of 2009 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The applicant also filed LPA No. 542 of 2009 for claiming the arrears of pay. The LPA of Nigam was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 and has attained finality. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2009.
(3.)Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the judgment and order dated 10.8.2009 of the Division Bench by filing the Special Leave Petition which was entertained as C.A. No. 4985 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 directing that the applicant shall be entitled to the back wages for the period during which he was out of job alongwith reinstatement. The applicant has not been given the benefit of re-designated pay/post and the pay- scale of a higher post wherein after the compulsory retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman Bhasin had been appointed w.e.f. 16.3.2005 and has been extended the benefit which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.
Hence, this Contempt Petition.
(2.)Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Nigam') was compulsorily retired vide an order dated 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004 and during its pendency, he reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2006. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2009 quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2003 but did not award the back wages to the applicant for the period he was out of job. The Nigam filed LPA No. 646 of 2009 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The applicant also filed LPA No. 542 of 2009 for claiming the arrears of pay. The LPA of Nigam was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 and has attained finality. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2009.
(3.)Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the judgment and order dated 10.8.2009 of the Division Bench by filing the Special Leave Petition which was entertained as C.A. No. 4985 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 directing that the applicant shall be entitled to the back wages for the period during which he was out of job alongwith reinstatement. The applicant has not been given the benefit of re-designated pay/post and the pay- scale of a higher post wherein after the compulsory retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman Bhasin had been appointed w.e.f. 16.3.2005 and has been extended the benefit which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.
Hence, this Contempt Petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.