Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS.(C) 1160/2016
MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner
Through Mr. B.S. Mor, Adv.
CONT.CAS.(C) 1160/2016
MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner
Through Mr. B.S. Mor, Adv.
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL & ANR Respondents
Through Mr. Rajan Sabharwal and Mr. Pravesh Joshi, Advs.
Through Mr. Rajan Sabharwal and Mr. Pravesh Joshi, Advs.
CONT.CAS(C) 1162/2016
P L VERMA Petitioner
P L VERMA Petitioner
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL & ORS Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 1163/2016
ARJUN SINpH TANWAR ..... Petitioner
ARJUN SINpH TANWAR ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL & ANR Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
14.12.2017
14.12.2017
CM APPL. 40032/2017 (direction) in CONT.CASrC) 1160/2016 &
CM APPL. 40031/2017 (direction in CONT.CAS(C) 1163/2016)
Rejected.
2017:DHC:8520 CONT.CASra II6O/2OI6. CONT.CASrO 1162/2016 and
CONT.CASrO 1163/2016 & CM APPL. 40031/2017 Mr. Mor, Id. counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the orders dated 23.10.2017 that has come to be passed by Ministry of
Railways, he has instructions to submit that the petitioner Mr. P.L.
Ve:rma is satisfied with the orders passed but the financial benefit there-under are yetto bereleased to him. Mr. Mor points out thatthe petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma is now aged about 80 years. Mr. Sabharwal, Id. counsel for the respondents feigns ignorance as to the remittance made to the petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma under the said orders dated 23.10.2017. In the event, the financial benefits have not yet been released to the petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma, the respondents shall ensure the release/remittance thereof, within four weeks from today.
As regards the other petitioners Mr. Mahender Kumar Sharma andMr. Arjun Singh Tanwar, who are saidto be also around 80 years,.
Mr. Mor, Id. counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instructions to notto press the instant petition any further. It is stated that the financial benefits under the said order are also yet to be remitted and that, they shall -receive such remittances, without prejudice to their rights and contentions to assail the said order in accordance with law, as may be available. In view of aforegoing, ;the competent authority of the respondents shall, ensure the release of the due financial benefits to the said petitioner Mr. Mahender Kumar
Sharma and Mr. Arjun SinghTanwar equally,within four weeks from today. Petitions and the pending application(s) are disposed off
; / i /' •-
/ accordingly. In the event, there is any failure to comply with the directions given, the petitioners are at liberty to seek revival of the instant petitions.
A. K. CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 14, 2017 frpc h )^Zn/}^ Br F;(PimWo ^
$-13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 1163/2016
ARJUN SINGH TANWAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Mor, Advocate
Rejected.
2017:DHC:8520 CONT.CASra II6O/2OI6. CONT.CASrO 1162/2016 and
CONT.CASrO 1163/2016 & CM APPL. 40031/2017 Mr. Mor, Id. counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the orders dated 23.10.2017 that has come to be passed by Ministry of
Railways, he has instructions to submit that the petitioner Mr. P.L.
Ve:rma is satisfied with the orders passed but the financial benefit there-under are yetto bereleased to him. Mr. Mor points out thatthe petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma is now aged about 80 years. Mr. Sabharwal, Id. counsel for the respondents feigns ignorance as to the remittance made to the petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma under the said orders dated 23.10.2017. In the event, the financial benefits have not yet been released to the petitioner Mr. P.L. Verma, the respondents shall ensure the release/remittance thereof, within four weeks from today.
As regards the other petitioners Mr. Mahender Kumar Sharma andMr. Arjun Singh Tanwar, who are saidto be also around 80 years,.
Mr. Mor, Id. counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instructions to notto press the instant petition any further. It is stated that the financial benefits under the said order are also yet to be remitted and that, they shall -receive such remittances, without prejudice to their rights and contentions to assail the said order in accordance with law, as may be available. In view of aforegoing, ;the competent authority of the respondents shall, ensure the release of the due financial benefits to the said petitioner Mr. Mahender Kumar
Sharma and Mr. Arjun SinghTanwar equally,within four weeks from today. Petitions and the pending application(s) are disposed off
; / i /' •-
/ accordingly. In the event, there is any failure to comply with the directions given, the petitioners are at liberty to seek revival of the instant petitions.
A. K. CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 14, 2017 frpc h )^Zn/}^ Br F;(PimWo ^
$-13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 1163/2016
ARJUN SINGH TANWAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Mor, Advocate
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL &ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranjan Sabarwal, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ranjan Sabarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
06.12.2018
06.12.2018
C.M. 12312/2018 (for revivalY
Petitioner's counsel submits that respondents have not fixed seniority ofpetitioner as per his entitlement. Along with rejoinder filed, an application seeking revival of the contempt petition and a copy of seniority list ofSeptember, 2016 is annexed as Annexure-8.
Petitioner^ counsel submits that petitioner is required to be put above Mr.D.Mukherjee.
Since substantial compliance oforder of8^'' October, 2015 has been made, therefore, there is no need to revive the contempt petition. If petitioner is not satisfied with the seniority list (Annexure P-8), then he may make aRepresentation seeking correct placement in the seniority list and consequential promotion, arrears etc. to second respondent herein within six weeks. If such a Representation is received by second respondent, then it be effectively dealt with and a speaking response
Page I1 w thereto be given by second respondent within twelve weeks and its fate be made known to petitioner within aweek thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies against order so passed on petitioner's
Representation.
With aforesaid direction, this application is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06,2018 Page 12
Petitioner's counsel submits that respondents have not fixed seniority ofpetitioner as per his entitlement. Along with rejoinder filed, an application seeking revival of the contempt petition and a copy of seniority list ofSeptember, 2016 is annexed as Annexure-8.
Petitioner^ counsel submits that petitioner is required to be put above Mr.D.Mukherjee.
Since substantial compliance oforder of8^'' October, 2015 has been made, therefore, there is no need to revive the contempt petition. If petitioner is not satisfied with the seniority list (Annexure P-8), then he may make aRepresentation seeking correct placement in the seniority list and consequential promotion, arrears etc. to second respondent herein within six weeks. If such a Representation is received by second respondent, then it be effectively dealt with and a speaking response
Page I1 w thereto be given by second respondent within twelve weeks and its fate be made known to petitioner within aweek thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies against order so passed on petitioner's
Representation.
With aforesaid direction, this application is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06,2018 Page 12
JUDGMENT