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
11 paragraphs · 212 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy. J
This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the order dated 02.11.2020 in OA No. 2397/2019. The OA was
allowed and the order impugned was set aside. However, it was left open to the respondents to issue notice to the applicant and to pass orders.
Further observation was that, in case no notice Is 1Sstied within tour weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the entire retirement benefits shall
be released to the applicant.
In the contempt case, it is contended that the respondents did not implement the order. However, from a perusal of the order dated 09.03.2021, filed
as Annexure CP-3. it is evident that the respondents had sent a notice to the applicant on 23.11.2020, proposing to revise 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP
and tor recovery of Rs.24.96,769/-. It was mentioned that the notice was returned, without service though it was sent through speed post. Across the
Bar, this factum was mentioned that notice was sent to the advocate on their behalf. In the order dated og.03.2021, the respondents have categorically
mentioned the fact that the notice was issued.
We do not find any reason to proceed with the Contempt case. The contempt case Is accordingly closed.