S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) THIS contempt appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP No. 712 of 2012. Along with the appeal CM No. 18979 -CII of 2014 has been filed seeking condonation of 86 days in filing the appeal and CM No. 18978 -CII of 2014 seeking condonation of 67 days in refiling the appeal.
(2.) THE grievance of the respondent -Sinder Kaur was against the non -compliance of the order, which according to the respondent, was required to be complied with by the appellants by releasing the pension payable to her within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed on 07.12.2011. As the same had not been complied with, the contempt petition was filed by the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the entire pensionary dues have been released to the respondent -Sinder Kaur, which fact has not been disputed by her. It was, however, stated by her that the pension had been released from the date of the order and not with effect from the date when it became due. It was held by this Court in the impugned order dated 20.01.2014 that there would be no contempt of this Court as the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the writ court was silent in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness had stated that a prayer for clarification of the order had already been made. The learned Single Judge held that if that be so and since the pension had been released in terms of the order dated 07.12.2011, which did not bind the appellants to a specific date, there was justification to the explanation offered by the appellants in the instant proceedings, which the court was persuaded to accept. The petition was, accordingly, disposed of leaving the respondent with a liberty to seek clarification before the writ court.
(3.) IT was, however, held that the appellants could not escape from the fact that ample delay had been caused in releasing the benefits due to the respondent. The delay was compounded by the fact which the previous order of the Court had demonstrated. The previous order which the learned Single Judge in all probability meant is the order dated 28.5.2012 (which has been fled with the paper book wherein it was observed that despite sufficient opportunities already granted the respondents (now appellants) had not complied with the order. While granting one more but last opportunity, it was directed that if the needful was not done before the adjourned date, respondent No. 2 (now appellant No. 2k shall remain present in Court to show cause as to why exemplary cost be not imposed upon him. Accordingly, the appellants were burdened with compensatory costs of Rs. 50,000/ -, which were ordered to be paid to the respondent.;