^ssssaG£S"~esaB ri ,^ ® B ® ~w.-< ,)'-iyu-i.i'J\/Vbi^_^.fv<i,\>^ .'V/Wv.irfw'i ^y^-i^vS-LfiS^^s !?t Wl ^ + sn^i^i R-fi.tb 3flt?I ?t)*f '?Tt^Fi ^er •^iprRrq, 'grftffTS. fadi'yy *11Hi?(r»H|cb a'nif^T xra^ _^ , .^•t:...&s.*..(t..l^°-^^1 ?0 '^ 200 fa'b<{8T' 3nt?i yRiTwgfttt Shri Pankai Aarawai, counsel it Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsei f This petition has been filed all< payment OT aues whicn are payabi wlllfuily disobeyed the order passe((t No.1398/09. Learned counsei for tne pet) certain disputes reiating to retirai du| which was finaily disposed off by f w.P.CS) No.1398/09 directing that tht consiaer ana pass oraer in accorf opportunity ot nearing to tne petitione]; passed by this Court, the case of| Committee in its decision dated 8/f 9/11/09 (Annexure-E), held that 1/5/03 to 31/08/08, be not recovet' recoverea, tne same snaii De refund^ the Retitioner submitted that insDitt L;omminee in ravour OT tne pemioneli oeen fuiiy extenaea to me pemioner tne order passed by this Court. On the other hand, iearned aTEer ine aecision of tne Ketira! uueg aue,' nas Deen paia to tne petitioner \ti aifference OT pay. It is submlttea v, exceiss chl^td41Tl 'RP^ff ^ 'fe11^ <f^i'^.R ^aipgii aii^i ^r rne petitioner. 'or tne resDonaent. sging that the respondent, in not making 3 to the petitioner under the law, has 'i by this Court on 17/3/09 in W.P.cS) tioner submitted that in the matter of 3s of the petitioner, a petition was fiied, his Court vide order dated 17/3/09 in 5 committee in respect of retirai dues to aance wlth iaw aner aftording proper tt is submiiied that after the order was tne petitioner was consiaerea DV tne ^/uy, communicstea yiae memo aatea ss oavment maae to tne Detitioner rrom ed and If a part of which has been 'd to the Detitioner. Learned counsei for i of adjudication of the Retirai Dues r, tne Denefit OT tne saia order nas not and the respondent has thereby flouted dounsei ror tne responaent suomits t? Committee. the amount which Is found tide cheaue dated 25/11/10, which is the <at tne oraer or tnis Court directed tne 1-rft^R.?-, ;d0E3c=s=^^>, S 6,—-fiS%sa K ^ '"^t^' XI-HC-22 "^'ssay + ^ni ^Hici'ii, dTi1'yJi(i. f»«ni'uy tllNMT Shllcb sii^?r iRrgr . ......fl^.^Aoe-(^t/^-o.5S3//-o 1^^T' an^r^i Rt-ii.i* sn^?i StiffNi '?fftci usepit sn^i ^RIRTC'oftg ^- Committee to consider the case. it i; is no specific direction aiven to the re; maKe payment or any particuiar amou By order dated 17/3/09, the C. pass oraer, in accoraance witn iaw entire exercise, including payment of De compietea witn a penoa OT rour m< tne oraer. i ne responaem nas stai Uourt, an amount ot KS.IB.SBB/- nas| wnicn is tne ainerence OT pay aamissi ! nougn learnea counsei tor tn< is emitlea to some omer amount andl in tne opinion or mis uourt, tne saia a| petition. whether the petitioner has n and payable under the iaw, is a matt^ petitioner would be at liberty to tak« avaiiable to him under the iaw. How< with the matter. Accordingiy, the aismissea. ^NcPJ^ tlItRif 4'fS'^ •(fe5TC ^TaipgH 311^51 also submitted tnat in tnat oraer, tnere fcondent to act in a Darticular manner or ht. {immittee was directed to consider and ilnd this Court further observed that the jetirai dues, if any, to tn®petitioner, may |inths from the dats of receipt of copy of id that in comDliance of order of this |been paid vide cheque dated 2511710, >ie to me pemioner. petitioner submined that the petitioner lcomDlete oavment has not been made, Ispute cannot be gone into ihe contempt iceivea the entire payment wnicn is aue which wouid reauire adjudication. The recourse to sucn remeay as may De •ver, i am not inclined to proceed further ule ls discharged ana tne petrtion is Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ; '.:nr;^ 'S" T<