C.O.C.P. No. 572 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 572 of 1999 Date of decision: 6.7.2010 Dr. S.K. Sood ........ Petitioner Versus Sh. T.R. Tulli and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner filed the present contempt petition on account of alleged violation of the following undertaking given to this Court on 6.12.1983, by the counsel for the respondents: “Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the respondent will be paid his salary within two months of the writ petition is dismissed. He further undertakes that the said amount will be paid with 12% interest P.M.. On this undertaking, the exparte stay order dated 17.8.1983 is made absolute.” The petitioner was a Lecturer, with S.L. Bawa, D.A.V. College, Batala. The service of the petitioner was terminated. An appeal was filed against the order of termination before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, under Section 4(4) of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974. The appeal was allowed on 18.5.1983. It is the said order which was challenged by the Managing Committee before this Court and the said undertaking was C.O.C.P. No. 572 of 1999 -2- given. The writ petition was dismissed on 2.9.1998. After the aforesaid order was passed the petitioner invoked the contempt petition before this Court by alleging violation of the undertaking given to this Court. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, the respondents have pointed out that against the order passed by the Single Judge and order in appeal, the Committee had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein interim stay was granted. Later the Special Leave was granted but the same was disposed of on 11.10.1999. It was clarified that the valuation of interest at the rate of 12% per month is inadvertently mentioned as the interest is at the rate of 12% per annum. Subsequent to the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the respondents have to paid a sum of Rs.22,43,458-56 on 5.5.2000, after deduction of tax at source with forwarding letter Annexure R-6. The petitioner disputed the calculations given in Annexure R-6. Certain payments have been made to the petitioner thereafter from time to time and different affidavits have been filed. Another sum of Rs.1,88,323/- after deduction of tax of Rs.50,000/- was remitted to the petitioner. The petitioner again pointed out certain calculation errors and also pointed out that he is entitled to scale of Rs.4500-7300. Thereafter, the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.7919/- vide cheque No. 202480 dated 1.11.2002 and Rs.9771/- vide cheque No. 809521 dated 25.2.2004, as is evident from the affidavit dated 23.3.2004 filed by Shri V.K. Bhatia, Principal, S.L.Bawa D.A.V. College Batala. Another affidavit dated 20.4.2004, was filed pointing out the difference in arrears in the pay scales shall be given to the Lecturers including the petitioner as and when the grants are released by the State Government. In the affidavit dated 13.2.2009, payment of certain additional amount such as a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid on 5.8.2005; Sum of Rs.9219/- was paid on 15.11.2006 and Rs.31,779/- paid on C.O.C.P. No. 572 of 1999 -3- 11.6.2007. Vide another affidavit dated 23.4.2009, it was pointed out that an amount of Rs.51,574/- is payable to the petitioner but the grant has not been released by the Government. Similar is the affidavit dated 18.12.2009, that payment of Rs.51,574/- is due to the petitioner but shall be paid on release of grant by the State Government. The perusal of the proceedings would show that the respondents have not denied their liability of payment of arrears and has been making payments from time to time. The controversy is in respect of amount due and payable. It is apparent that the respondents have not shown any intention to violate the undertaking given to this Court on 6.12.1983, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are in contempt. If, the petitioner has any further claim, he is at liberty to submit a representation to the respondents or to the Director, Public Instructions, for enforcing his claim against the respondent-Management As and when any such claim is made, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. Dismissed. July 6, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE