Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 747 (MP)

Ravi Kumar Gupta v. V. K. Duggal

2010-07-27

PIYUSH MATHUR

body2010
ORDER 1. "This contempt petition present a very sorry state of affairs that the direction given by this Court in W.P.No. 788/2005 on date 15.12.2005 for the consideration of the case of a Freedom Fighter, claiming Central Government Pension (upon receiving State Pension) has not been complied with by Union of India. 2. This matter was previously listed on date 15.7.2010 before this Court and Shri Y.K. Sharma, learned counsel had prayed for a week's time to ascertain the status of compliance of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 788/05 on date 15.12.2005. 3. Today when the matter was called up for hearing, Shri V.K. Sharma learned counsel has produced a copy of a Fax Letter dated 20.7.2010, wherein Shri H. C. Bhanot, Under Secretary to the Government of India has informed to Shri V.K. Sharma, that in view of pendency of contempt petition No. 185/06, the Union of India is intending to prefer an appeal (writ appeal) against the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.788/05 on date 15.12.2010. 4. It is a matter of record that the limitation of preferring a Letter Patent Appeal was 30 days and a writ appeal now can be preferred within a period of 30 days in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and in both these cases, an appeal could have been preferred within a maximum period of 45 days and even when the Supreme Court had remitted several matters back to the High Court, on acc9unt of availability of remedy of writ appeal, the Union of India has not chosen to file any writ appeal, until a direction was given by this Court on date 15.7.2010 to ascertain the status of the compliance of the Order. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is desirable that Shri H.C. Bhanot, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi should personally remain present before this Court on 27th July, 2010 for explaining the reasons of non-compliance of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 788/05, as also the reasons of non-filing even a reply of contempt petition since year 2006. Shri Bhanot would also be desired to explain the reasons of non-compliance of the Order for such a long time, as also the steps taken in between date 15.12.2005 to 15.7.2010 for preferring and/or non-preferring of a writ appeal against the order passed by the Court in W.P.No. 788/05. 6. Needless to observe that if the order passed by this Court is now complied with by respondents-Union of India, then Shri H.C. Bhanot shall not be required to personally appear on date 27.7.20 10. 7. Shri VK. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent is directed to inform Shri H.C. Bhanot about the order passed by this Court today. List the matter on 27th July, 2010." 8. During the hearing of this matter today Shri VK. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent has placed a FAX copy of order dated 26th July, 2010 to demonstrate that the Union of India has granted Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner in compliance to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 788/05 and necessary approval and sanction has also been granted for disbursement of Rs. 5,02,982/- to the petitioner along with other admissible claims of pension. 9. Since the respondent Union of India has now passed the order in compliance/obedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 788/06, nothing survive further for adjudication by this Court in the present contempt petition. 10. At this stage, Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that although the order passed by this Court has been substantially complied with but there still remains some dispute about the calculation of amount payable to the petitioner and the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation to the respondent. 11. Shri Y.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent very fairly submit that in case the petitioner submits a representation to the authorities, the same shall be examined in accordance with law by the authorities. 12. In this view of the matter, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits a representation before Union of India then it shall be looked into by the respondent and suitable order shall be passed thereupon. 13: With the aforesaid observation, this contempt petition is finally disposed of. Rule Nishi issued against the respondent is hereby discharged.