- (1.) This is second application for contempt filed by the petitioner, who was a Captain, in Army and was injured on war front in 1965, for implementation of the order passed by this court in 1981 and 1986. When the first contempt application and a writ petition for habeas corpus filed by the wife of petitioner, in circumstances which are not necessary to be narrated, was decided in 1986 it was observed as under : [1986 2 SCC 217,219, para 1] "When judgment was pronounced in Civil No. 475 of 1976 (Captain Virendra Kumar v. Union of India , it was thought that an unhappy litigation had come to a happy ending. But it was not so. It appears that Civil No. 475 of 1976 was only a prelude to a long drawn out acrimonious and dogged litigation, both parties to which appeared to us to be blameworthy. On the one hand, the matter appears to be viewed by the authorities as one of prestige, that is, false prestige and hurt dignity. On the other hand, there is misplaced determination coupled with a sense of an emotional hurt on the side of the Captain. "
(2.) Since then seven years elapsed and the petitioner once again approached this court for implementation of the orders passed in 1981 and 1986. It is not necessary for us to refer to various affidavits filed by parties as Shri Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General, on our request, had heard the petitioner and the Union of India, Delhi Development Authority and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to iron out the differences and find out the possible solution. He filed the report on 30/9/1993. Relevant portions of it are extracted below: "I, therefore, proceeded to examine as to whether 'all benefits, retiral or otherwise' consequent upon the discharge of Capt. Virendra Kumar 'from service on 21/2/1981' were paid to him or not. I desired the Army authorities to produce yearwise and monthwise details of payments made to petitioner in lieu of his benefits, retiral or Otherwise. A statement eventually came a copy whereof was given to Capt. Virendra Kumar. I enclose the copy of the statement furnished to me with this report. Quite apart from the details regarding arrears of pay and allowances set. out by the Army authorities in the said enclosures I find that certain benefits to which Capt. Virendra Kumar would be entitled in execution of aforesaid para 21 of the judgment of this Hon'ble court have not been given to him. These are : 305 (7 Benefit of Army Group Insurance Scheme. The Army authorities agreed before me that this benefit shall be extended to him from the date of his discharge i. e. 21/2/1981 subject to the terms of Special Army Order 111/s/81. The petitioner will have to appear before the Medical Board. A cheque for Rs. 3,135. 00 for the period prior to 21/2/1981 is lying ready with the Army authorities under this head for being passed on to the petitioner. (ii) Defence Service Officers' Provident Fund. (DSOPF) has admittedly not been paid to the petitioner. It is further admitted that an amount of Rs. 9,331. 00 is due to the petitioner in this behalf and a cheque is lying ready. (iii) The Army Authorities Children's Education Fund. This benefit was also agreed to be worked out in accordance with rules. (iv) Terminal Gratuity Benefits. This benefit has admittedly not been worked out beyond 30/9/1970. Hence in my opinion the payment of this benefit is required to be worked out and paid to the petitioner for the period from 1/10/1970 to 21/2/1981. (v) Disability Pension. The petitioner, in my opinion, deserves to be given this benefit also provided he is so entitled in the opinion of the medical board. The petitioner and the Army authorities agreed before me to cooperate with each other for complying with the procedural requirements necessary for the purposes of aforesaid benefits. (2 Delhi Development Authority: In regard to DDA the petitioner states that the decision to allot a restaurant in Block 'e', East of Kailash to him conveyed, vide their letter of 22/5/1980, was not carried out. It appears that the said decision was subsequently revoked. The counsel for DDA has vehemently argued that this dispute is beyond the scope of present proceedings. I would, therefore, not express my opinion on the grievances of the petitioner against DDA. (3 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited : The petitioner desires that MTNL provide him with one Telex and one Fax machine for 35 years, rent free, at the cost of the department. I had suggested to the counsel for the department to explore the possibilities of a settlement. His instructions are that the demands of the petitioner are unacceptable. "neither party filed any objection to the report.
(3.) What was submitted by the petitioner can be conveniently divided in two parts, one, that he was still continuing in service and, second, that even though the amount calculated for the period in the report was correct, the appellant was entitled to even higher amounts for reasons which shall be discussed presently.;