Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1942 (HP)

Sushil Sharma v. J. S. Rana

2015-12-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that respondent has complied with the directions issued by this Court and made the payments with interest @ 7% as awarded and recorded in the judgment but the respondent had to pay interest @10% per annum which is recorded in the order made by this Court in CWP No. 455 of 2011 titled Rajinder Singh Jishtu versus State of HP and others, and further in the order made by this Court in Execution Petition No. 147 of 2014 titled Sushil Sharma versus State of HP and others dated 27.10.2014. 2. The core question involved in this Contempt Petition is whether any Court can direct the judgment-debtor-respondent in the writ petition to comply with the judgment in a contempt petition or in an Execution petition adding and subtracting the judgment? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 3. This Court has passed the judgment in CWP No. 455 of 2011, and directed as under. “2. It is also seen from the reply that the Government, however, has permitted the Corporation to dispose of its property at Jachh, Amb, Nalagarh and Pesticide Unit at Parwanoo at market value and get revenue to meet the financial requirements of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that steps have already been taken to dispose of one such property and others are in process. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take expeditious steps to dispose of the property as permitted by the Government and settle the dues to the retired and serving employees. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from today; if not, the dues will carry interest @ 7% from the date of retirement and officers responsible for the delay in the Corporation shall be personally liable for the same. Needless to say that the proper procedure under the law in the matter of disposal of the public property, shall be strictly adhered to” 4. One of the petitioners filed CMP No. 9871 of 2011 in CWP No. 455 of 2011, and the Court was pleased to direct the respondent to pay interest @10% only to the petitioner. It is apt to reproduce order dated 2.12.2011, passed in CMP No. 9871 of 2011 herein. “CMP No. 9871 of 2011. The application is allowed, as prayed for. It is apt to reproduce order dated 2.12.2011, passed in CMP No. 9871 of 2011 herein. “CMP No. 9871 of 2011. The application is allowed, as prayed for. It is made clear that there shall be no further extension of time. Still further it is made clear that in case the judgment passed by this Court on 27.4.2011 in CWP NO. 455 of 2011 is not complied with, within the time as prayed for in the application, the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 10% and the official responsible for the delay shall be liable for the same. The application stands disposed of.” 5. This order was made applicable to the petitioner/applicant in CMP No. 9871 of 2011 in CWP No. 455 of 2011 and not for others. The Executing Court in Contempt Petition cannot pass any direction which is not contained in the judgment sought to be executed due to the violation, as alleged. 6. Having said so, the respondent has complied with the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 455 of 2011 titled Rajinder Singh Jishtu versus State of HP and others. If the petitioner still feel aggrieved, he is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.