Vishno Devi vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta And Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present contempt petition has been initiated complaining about the disobedience of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the

Division Bench in LPASW No. 183/2009.

It appears from the facts that SWP No. 1233/2005 was filed by the petitioner-wife of Late Sh. Harbans Lal. The said writ petition was allowed by

the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 02.04.2009 with a direction to treat the husband of the petitioner as Helper w.e.f 01.05.1995 with salary

and other benefits till July, 2004 with a further direction that he will not be entitled to receive any monetary benefit for the period he has not worked

and the said period will be counted towards seniority.

The above judgment of the learned single Judge was taken in appeal before the Division Bench and the same was disposed of vide the judgment

and order dated 16.04.2015 with the following observation:-

6…………………….In such circumstances the order of the learned Single Judge is modified holding that as the order passed by the appellant

dated 09.09.1995 having been set aside by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for the purposes of sanctioning

arrears of pension and family pension to the widow of the writ petitioner.

The appeal is disposed of with direction to the appellants to sanction the pension in favour of the 1st respondent by treating the writ petitioner having

been regularized with effect from 01.04.1994 till his date of superannuation and pay arrears of pension and other terminal benefits to the 1st

respondent and sanction and pay family pension to the 1st respondent from 17.01.2015, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy

of this order.

The bare reading of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench would reveal that the directions given by the learned

Single Judge were not set aside but were modified. One of the direction given by the learned Single Judge was for salary to the husband of the

petitioner from 01.05.1995 till July, 2004, provided he has worked in the said period. The Division Bench simply modified the above order of the

learned Single Judge by directing that the husband of the petitioner shall be treated to be in deemed service for the purposes of sanctioning arrears of

pension and family pension to her. It was further directed that the husband of the petitioner shall be treated as having regularized w.e.f 01.04.1994 and

would be entitled to arrears of pension and other terminal benefits from the said date till the date of his superannuation.

In view of the above directions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, it is amply clear that there is no clear cut direction for payment

of any salary except for the learned Single Judge directing for the payment of salary till July, 2004 with the condition that the husband of the petitioner

has worked during that period.

It is admitted position that the petitioner has been paid arrears of pension, terminal benefits and family pension and the only grievance of the

petitioner is that she is also entitled to the arrears of difference of salary as a regularized employee from 01.05.1995 to July, 2004. In the absence of

any clear direction for payment of the difference of salary for the said period, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately

disobeyed the order rather it may be on account interpretation of the aforesaid orders which are open for two different views.

In case the petitioner feels that under the aforesaid orders, she is entitled to the aforesaid benefit as her husband had worked during the aforesaid

period, she may pursue her remedy before the Department or any other forum as may be advised to her in law.

The contempt petition stands disposed of and the notice, if any, shall stand discharged.