Full Text
"W HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Reserve:8"^ March,2010
Date of Order: ll"' March,2010 CONT.CAS.(C)No. 155/2008
11.03.2010 Mr. BalwantSingh Kainth ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P.Sirohi, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see thejudgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. WhetherJudgmentshould be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
The petitioner preferred this contempt petition alleging violation of order dated 5"^ November,2008. The operative part of which reads as under:
5. Accordingly, the appeal is ailowed. The respondent is directed to release the interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the resignation not later than 15"' December, 2008, failing which the amountshallcarry furtherinterest@5% per annum.
2. it is not denied that the petitioner had got payment of salary and wages. However,the grievance ofthe petitioner was that he was not paid interest in terms of the order. This Court gave directions to the Registrar General to submit a report as to whether the entire payment, inclusive of interest, in terms of order had been made or not. The Registrar General after taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal as well as order passed by Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.14,131.17 was still unpaid. On 8'" March,2010,the respondent paid this amount to the petitioner in the Court. The petitioner's counsel argued thatthe petitioner was entitled to receive compound interest. CCP No.155/2008 Pagelot[2] 2010:DHC:6946 13'
3. I consider that the orders as passed by the Tribunal and by the Division Bench do not talk of compound interest thus, the calculations made by the petitioner. This Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed. March 11,2010 vn SHIV NARAYAN DH ]1/