The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging that there has been a willful disobedience of the direction contained in Annexure-I interim order of this Court. The operative portion of the interim order reads as follows: “In view of the above this I.A. is allowed. The second respondent is directed to disburse the terminal benefits of the petitioner without refixing his pay as proposed in Ext.P10 order after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner to repay the amount, if it is found later on that, excess amount has been paid to him.”
2. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has already executed an undertaking as stipulated by the order. Thereupon, he has been paid an amount of ₹10,02,840/-. Thereafter a further amount of ₹2,19,567/- has also been paid. The case of the petitioner is that, further amounts are due to him for the reason that three pay revisions have been implemented after the Con.Case (C) No.747 of 2014 2 initial interim order of status quo granted by this Court in W.P.
(C) No.18154 of 2012. It is contended that, since the interim order of stay was in operation, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefits of the subsequent pay revisions also, that were implemented after the date of the said interim order.
3. According to the counsel for the respondent, in the case of the petitioner the subsequent pay revisions had not been implemented for the reason that the writ petition was pending before this Court. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits thereof is the subject matter of the writ petition itself.
Heard. A perusal of the direction contained in Annexure-I shows that, what has been directed is only not to reduce the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P10. It is not in dispute that no reduction in salary has been made on the basis of Ext.P10. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any violation or disobedience of the interim direction contained in Annexure-I. With respect to the claim of the petitioner that he ought to have been paid the enhancement in salary arising consequent to the implementation of the subsequent pay Con.Case (C) No.747 of 2014 3 revisions also is a matter on which, further orders from this Court would have to be obtained. IN view of the above, I find no grounds to pursue this contempt case. This contempt case is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.