(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) On 18.04.2012, we had passed the following order:
"1. Leave to amend the cause-title.
"2. The applicant-original petitioner complains of non-compliance of the order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.37 of 2011.
3. It is an admitted position that the undertaking, which the applicant had to file in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge, has been duly filed. Despite this, the respondent has not released the pensionary benefits of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel Shri Buch for the respondent prayed for time submitting that there is dispute with respect to the pay-scale of the applicant. He further submitted that the respondent also wishes to prefer Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly however, such appeal is not even filed till now.
5. Under the circumstances, though we are accepting the request for time and adjourning the hearing to 02.05.2012, keeping all the disputes aside, we require the respondent herein to start paying pension to the applicant prospectively on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the next date of hearing, the respondent shall release the pension by actual payment thereof to the applicant for the month of April, 2012. Any fixation of pension will be provisional. This is however, subject to the condition that the applicant shall, as soon as informed about the respondent regarding the provident fund which the applicant has to surrender to the Nagar Palika, do so without any further delay.
6. This is without prejudice to the respondent's rights to prefer appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge and subject to outcome thereof, if such appeal is presented."
Today when the matter was called out, learned counsel Shri Niraj Buch conveyed to us that because of some misunderstanding, calculation of amount of provident fund which the applicant had to surrender to the Nagarpalika could not be conveyed to the applicant. He stated that the concerned officer was under the impression that the applicant would approach the authorities for such purpose.
Our order was clear. The same did not permit any ambiguity or possibility of any misunderstanding. We are prima facie of the opinion that the respondent and his machinery is not taking the court's order seriously. Despite such a strong order which came to be passed on 18.4.12, today we are informed that notice for surrendering the provident fund amount was issued on 30th April 2012. We are of the opinion that such progress is not what we had expected in our order dated 18.4.2012.
Under the circumstances, respondent is directed to remain personally present before the Court on 3rd May 2012. He shall file an affidavit explaining his conduct. It is directed that till further orders, he shall not draw his salary.
Counsel for the respondent shall convey this order to the respondent for its compliance, for which purpose a copy may be made available to him.
S.O.
to 3rd May 2012.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn) Top