Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2174 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Sinha Opposite Party :- Millan Mukharjee, Manager And 3 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi,Deo Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
A writ petition preferred by the applicant was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the Court permitting the applicant to represent his case before the opposite party. While disposing of the petition, the Court had specifically observed that the same was being disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequent to the said direction, the opposite party has by an order dated 2 March 2017 confirmed the applicant with effect from 7 July 1989. The contention of the learned counsel is that consequential benefits were also liable to be paid.
This Court finds itself unable to sustain this submission or to initiate proceedings in contempt thereon for the simple reason that no rights of the applicant were adjudicated or ruled upon by the writ Court. As noted above, the petition was disposed of with the Court not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicant. Consequently, it is not permissible for this Court to hold that the opposite party was also liable to pay all other benefits.
In case the applicant has any claim with respect to the consequential benefits, the same must be agitated independently and cannot possibly form part of consideration of an application alleging contempt.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Arun K. Singh