Balwant Singh Kainth v. Upma Chaudhary & Ors

JUDGMENT The petitioner preferred this contempt petition alleging violation of order dated 5"^ November, 2008. The operative part of which reads as under:

¶5Accordingly, the appeal is ailowed. The respondent is directed to release the interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the resignation not later than 15"' December, 2008, failing which the amount shall carry further interest @ 5% per annum.

¶2it is not denied that the petitioner had got payment of salary and wages. However, the grievance of the petitioner was that he was not paid interest in terms of the order. This Court gave directions to the Registrar General to submit a report as to whether the entire payment, inclusive of interest, in terms of order had been made or not. The Registrar General after taking into account the order passed by the Tribunal as well as order passed by Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.14,131.17 was still unpaid. On 8'" March, 2010, the respondent paid this amount to the petitioner in the Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was entitled to receive compound interest. CCP No. 155/2008 Page lot 2 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 13'

¶3I consider that the orders as passed by the Tribunal and by the Division Bench do not talk of compound interest thus, the calculations made by the Registrar General are as per the orders. No further amount is payable to the petitioner. This Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed. March 11, 2010 vn SHIV NARAYAN DH ]1/ CCP IMo. 155/2008

•ifj "W * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 8"^ March, 2010 Date of Order: ll"' March, 2010 CONT. CAS. (C) No. 155/2008 % 11.03.2010 Mr. Balwant Singh Kainth ...Petitioner Through: Mr. J.P.Sirohi, Advocate Versus Ms. Upma Chaudhary & Anr. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether Judgment should be reported in Digest?