Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party.
This is a case wherein an old father, aged about 76 years, is seeking justice in the form of the compensation for untimely death of his son since 1985. Nearly three decades have passed and the old man could not climb the mountain of justice and since then he is litigating for its cause.
The Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 23.11.2009 , whereby it came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be given compensation. The Division Bench in the last but one paragraph has observed as under:-
" Thus, the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment should be considered the Rules existing at the relevant time to promote justice miscarriage has to be preferred. In other words, the interpretation which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act or the provision has been inserted in the Act, should be preferred meaning thereby the liberal and not the literal interpretation should be given. Had the Tribunal applied the Rule as existing at the time of making the order, it would have not resulted in miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 21.11.1995 is hereby set-aside. "
Furthermore, in the last paragraph, the Division Bench has taken cognizance of the fact that the appellant is litigating for his rights since 1986. The matter was sent back to the tribunal only for determining the quantum of compensation expeditiously, say, within a maximum period of six months. The tribunal has decided quantum as Rs. 4.0 Lacs along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of application dated 21.06.1986. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 08.11.2010 is annexed as annexure-3, to the contempt petition.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties says that he has got a cheque of Rs. 10,5578/- and he had deposited the same with the tribunal. He further says that the cheque has been refunded back by the tribunal for the reason that there was no order for its deposition with the tribunal.
On a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the tribunal's contention is correct. The compensation has to be given to the petitioner, who is litigating for the last 25 years. The payment should be made to the petitioner which is the intention of the judgment of this Court. The payment has already been delayed and the compensation has not been paid for the last 25 years. Let payment be made in compliance of Court's order within a maximum period of fifteen days from today.
List this case on 4.11.2011.
In case the aforesaid amount is not handed over to the petitioner, Sri K.B. L. Mittal, General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, shall appear in person before this Court on the next date of listing to explain as to why the proceedings for committing contempt of this Court should not be initiated against him and why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Court's Act.
Order Date :- 21.10.2011 RS.