RADHA KRISHAN RAJPAL Vs. SHRI VINAY CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging therein that the petitioner was charged -sheeted and was removed from the service of the District Red Cross Society on 17.10.1979. A Civil Writ Petition No. 2056 of 1990 against the said order was allowed by this Court on 29.9.1993. The petitioner was allowed to join the duty in the month of January, 1994. But the respondents challenged the said judgment which became subject matter of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1994. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.1998. Subsequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 5.11.2004. At the time of admission of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Bench had stayed the payment of the back wages to the petitioner. After the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner served a notice dated 1.6.2005 for releasing of the benefits i.e. back wages etc. Since the said back wages have not been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition.

(2.) On behalf of the respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioner in his writ petition has not specifically claimed the back wages nor did he opt to aver or plead that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question. It was, thus, pointed out that the question of granting back wages was never directly and substantially in issue before the Writ Court. It was also pointed out that even if the same was in issue, since the Court has not granted any such relief, the same is deemed to be refused. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, but do not find that any case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. While challenging the order of removal in the writ petition, the petitioner has not averred that he was not gainfully employed after his termination till the filing of the writ petition or thereafter. The writ petition was allowed by this Court when it was held to the following effect: