Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1991 of 2012 Applicant :- Hari Krishna Upadhayaya Opposite Party :- Dr. Shiv Pujan R. Singh, Suptt. Of Post Office Counsel for Applicant :- G.D. Mishra,D.K. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,S.C.,Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party.
The writ Court vide order dated 30 November 2011 allowed the writ petition. Operative portion of the order reads thus:
"The writ petition is accordingly, allowed and the matter is remanded back fro fresh enquiry to the Department concerned from the stage of cross-examination of witness. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the salary from the date of illegal termination of his services till the conclusion of the enquiry for subsistence of the petitioner and 50% of the salary shall be subject to final decision of the Disciplinary authority. Needless to say that he shall also be paid subsistence allowance month to month as and when it falls due till final orders are passed in the enquiry proceedings.
No order as to costs."
Pursuant to the order, the applicant was reinstated in service on 21 February 2013, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings was continued from the stage as directed by the writ Court and finally the applicant was dismissed in July 2013.
It is urged that pursuant to the direction of the writ Court, 50% salary from the date of termination i.e. 1993 till the date of reinstatement and during the pendency of the domestic enquiry, was paid, however, it is urged that enhanced salary revised from time to time and the dearness allowance thereon was not paid.
In my opinion, there is no such direction, the opposite party admittedly has complied the writ Court order, the way they understood the order. In case there is any difficulty in the interpretation of the writ Court order, the course open to the applicant is to seek clarification/modification of the writ Court order.This Court in contempt jurisdiction would decline to read anything other than that is stated in the order.
In view thereof, the petition is consigned to record. Notices, if any, stands discharged.
It is made clear that disposal of the petition shall not preclude the applicant from seeking clarification/modification of the writ Court order, if so advised.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 S.Prakash