Full Text
CONT.CAS(C)313/2014
KULWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr.Puneet Singh Arora,Adv.
Through Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Adv. with Mr. S. Kanwaljeet Singh, Accounts
Officer.
HARMEET SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr.PuneetSingh Arora,Adv.
Through Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Adv. with Mr. S. Kanwaljeet Singh, Accounts
Officer.
ORDER o/o 05.02.2020 The instant contempt petition is founded on the allegations that the respondents violated the order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge on areview petitionfiled in W.P.(C)1142/2014KulwantSingh
V. Guru Nanak Institute ofManagement & Ors. which stood disposed of vide order dated 26.02.2014. The writ petition was preferred to agitate the issue of non-payment ofsubsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. The writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.02.2014 and relevantto the context,itreads as under;
JUDGMENT
4. Mr.Sherawatfurthersays thatadditionaltime be granted to thepetitioners, tofile a reply to the charge-sheet. -
5. Having regard to thefact that the petitioners have spent some time in this court toprosecute the presentpetition, the disciplinary authority will give at least three weeks to the petitioners tofile a reply to the charge-sheet." Later, on a review petition filed, the review petition was disposed of on 10.03.2014 with the observations,as follows: "4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the counselfor the respondents, in my opinion, in view of the statement made by Mr. Sherawat, learned counselfor the petitioner, ifthe petitioner were to file an affidavit that he was not gainfully employed during the relevantperiod, nothingfurther needs to be observed. 4.[1] I may only indicate though, that even in the judgmentin the case ofV.P. Gindroniya there is a reference to thefact that even where the contract ofemployment or of rules, do notprovidefor suspension, 'interim suspension,' can be ordered. 4.[2] However, this need not detain me any further. Upon the petitionerfiling the relevant affidavit, respondent no.1 willpay the subsistence allowance due to thepetitioner within one week thereafter. Needless to say, arrears ifany towards subsistence allowance will also be paid. In this behalf the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.P Gindroniya will also be taken into account." The combined reading of the orders passed by the leamed Single Judge leaves no doubt that the issue agitated was only with regard to subsistence allowance and during the course of hearing. Id. counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance. but, according to him,it came to be paid as per the CCS(CCA)rules, which were not applicable. Whether CCS(CCA)rules were applicable or not, is not the issue to be gone into by this Court, the fact remains the subsistence allowance came to be paid and on being queried. Id. counsel for the petitioner states that initially the subsistence allowance was paid@50% and thereafter @ 75%. What is the basis of contending that the petitioner was entitled to 100% ofthe salary towards subsistence allowance,Id. counsel for the petitioner however fails to point out. Taking into account the totality offacts and circumstances,the Court does not find any merits in the petition. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A.K.CHAWLA,J FEBRUARY 05,2020 1 acm