- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. From the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, it appears that the impugned order 16.4.2007 passed in WP(S) No. 1077 of 2007 has been complied with in as much as the payment claimed by the petitioner which was due has been paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner though acknowledges receipt of the payment but submits that interest on the principal amount has not been paid by the respondents.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties would submit by way of explanation that as a matter of fact, the petitioner's claim for interest is misconceived in view of the fact that even before the impugned order was passed on 16.4.2007 in the writ petition, the total admitted dues towards retiral benefits of the petitioner was paid to him on 28.2.2007. But this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while the order was passed. Learned counsel submits further that payment of interest was directed to be made only in the event of delayed payment. Since there was no delay in making payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner, opposite parties are not liable to pay the interest to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that retiral dues was paid to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. From the facts as aforesaid, I am satisfied that the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with and no contempt is made out. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of and the proceeding is dropped.
(3.) HOWEVER , if the petitioner has any further grievance, he may file representation before the concerned authority of the respondents/opposite parties seeking relief, if so advised, in accordance with law.;