Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Kishan Lakhera vs Shri R.S.Julaniya (I.A.S.) on 20 August, 2019
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 CONC-925-2011
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CONC-925-2011
(HARI KISHAN LAKHERA Vs SHRI R.S.JULANIYA (I.A.S.))
5
Gwalior, Dated : 20-08-2019
Shri S.S.Gautam, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Somnath Seth, Government Advocate for the Respondent /State.
Shri G.H.Shrivastava, respondent No.2 is present in person. Petitioner by this contempt petition alleges non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.132/2008(s) whereby the following directions were passed:-
In view of the matter, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the respondents and the same shall be considered by the respondents by passing a speaking order before giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the petitioner be found entitled, the same shall be paid to the petitioner. The order be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
The State has filed three separate compliance reports on 29.02.2012, 23.03.2015 and 19.08.2019 which inter alia reveal that on 05.01.2012, the petitioner has passed order deciding representation of petitioner releasing certain amount of claims qua pensionary benefit but withholding gratuity in toto. Subsequently, in the second compliance report, a direction was issued that since the matter stands settled by the Apex Court by dismissal of SLP of the State on 25.02.2013, vide Annexure C-1 dated 26.03.2013, the withhold amount of gratuity be paid. Gratuity payment order was issued vide Annexure C-2 dated 25.02.2012.
In view of above, compliance of direction contained in order dated 15.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.132/2008(s) appears to be made, though with considerable delay since the time period fixed for compliance of the order
2 CONC-925-2011 was three months and the order of compliance was passed after more than a year.
The petitioner who is aged about 72 years has been compelled to knock the doors of the Court in the evening of his life. The State and its functionaries ought to have shown more compassion and grace while dealing with the petitioner. Consequently, this Court while dropping rule nisi against the respondents directs that petitioner shall be entitled to cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner by digital transfer in his pension account by the respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today and file compliance report in the Registry of this Court failing which this case be listed as PUD for execution.
It is needless to emphasis that the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the order of compliance in accordance with law.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Ashish* ASHISH CHOURASIYA 2019.08.24 17:19:54 +05'30'