Ranjeet Singh vs Himanshu Shekhar Chaudhari

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2704 of 2015, dated 28.08.2015, titled as Ranjeet Singh Versus H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., which stood disposed of by the learned Tribunal in the following terms:­ "the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment in CWP No.2937 of 2009 and CWP No.6847 of 2013, with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment, if the same has attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to him along with consequential benefits, if any, as per law, without any discrimination, within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with copy of the aforesaid judgment, by the applicant".

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the relief prayed for by the petitioner subsequently stands granted to him by the authority concerned, however, there has been a considerable delay in the grant of relief in favour of the petitioner and in terms of the order, which stood passed in the judgment, on the basis of which directions stood issued by the learned Tribunal in the Original Application filed by the present petitioner, he is also entitled for interest on the delay in the release of benefits.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been strongly refuted by learned counsel for the respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that whether or not the delay, if any, in the release of benefits, entitles the petitioner to claim interest from the respondent or not, cannot be decided in this Contempt Petition and in case petitioner has any grievance in this regard, then he is at liberty to agitate the said cause by way of initiating appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of Law.

With said observations, this Contempt Petition is closed, however, with liberty, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case petitioner wants to agitate the cause of delayed release of benefits, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to do the same. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.