AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 225 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant filed OA No. 2447/2018 feeling aggrieved by the re-fixation of her pay through order dated 25.09.2017. It was in the context of extension of benefit of the time bound promotion. A sum of Rs.3,33,968/- was also deducted from the retirement benefits of the applicant. The OA was allowed on 31.10.2019, and the order of refixation was set aside. The respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,33,968/-and her pension was directed to be refixed. This contempt case was filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the order dated 31.10.2019.
The respondents filed a compliance affidavit. It is stated that the amount of Rs.3,33,968/- was refunded. The pension of the applicant was revised and the various benefits were extended. The applicant filed a rejoinder.
We heard Mr. Surinder Kumar Bhasin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents.
The dispute in the OA was about the re-calculation of the pensionary benefits of the applicant and deduction of certain amount. The Tribunal issued directions on various aspects. From the compliance affidavit, we find that every direction issued in the OA is complied with. In case the applicant has any further grievance, she has to work out her remedies separately, in accordance with law.
We, therefore, close the CP.