Date of Order : 08.08.2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Narain Das Gupta, petitioner in person. Mr. Vishal Mathur, General Manager, Hotel Jaipur Ashok (ITDC), Jaipur, present in person. BY THE COURT This contempt petition has been filed for noncompliance of the order dated 06.09.2013, passed by this Court in SBCWP No.6087/2013. The petitioner appears in person and states that in terms of the order of this Court aforesaid, he was entitled to be paid 95 days P.L. encashment, 30 months special allowance @ Rs.1000/ p.m. and 5% additional HRA as the petitioner had been paid only 20% of his basic as HRA in spite of being entitled to 25% basic pay as HRA. He states that amounts due on account of P.L. Encashment and 30 months special allowance have been paid to him. His case in the present petition is that additional 5% HRA due to him has not yet been, paid. This according to the petitioner, constitutes contempt of the order dated 06.09.2013, passed by this Court. Mr. Vishal Mathur, respondentcontemnor No.1 appears for himself and for other respondentscontemnors. He submits that S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1255/2013 (2) in terms of the settlement between the India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and the Workmen arrived at on 10.07.2010 inter alia under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, 25% of the basic pay was indeed to be paid as HRA in Jaipur City. He however points out that in terms of clause 24 of the settlement dated 10.07.2010 it was subject to approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation / Ministry of Tourism / DPE. Vide letter dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India under the hand of Assistant DG (PSU) on the subject of wages revision of nonexecutive employees (workmen) of ITDC following IDA pattern of scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007, it has been provided that HRA would be regulated as per DPC OM dated 26.11.2008 and amended from time to time as warranted. He submits that the office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 to which reference has been made in the letter dated 27.10.2010 referred above provides that 20% of the basic pay would be payable as HRA to those posted in a city with a population of 5 lakhs to 50 lakhs. He submits that consequently the petitionerworkman during his employment with ITDC posted at Jaipur was entitled to only 20% HRA and that amount having already been made, no arrears of 5% of the basic pay as HRA or otherwise if is payable to the petitioner. Heard the parties in person. No doubt there was settlement between the Indian Tourism Development Corporation and the workers of the Corporation represented by three different Trade Unions which provided for payment of 25% of the basic pay as HRA for those S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1255/2013 (3) employees posted in cities with population of 5 lakhs to 50 lakhs as Jaipur was where the petitioner indeed working. That agreement was however subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation / Ministry of Tourism / DPE. The Government of India, Ministry of Tourism, under its letter dated 27.10.2010 approved HRA to be paid to the workers as per Department of Public Enterprises office memorandum dated 26.11.2008. A look at the office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 indicates that those in the employment of Department of Public Enterprises and posted in cities with the population of 5 lakhs to 50 lakhs were entitled to 20% of basic pay as HRA. The city of Jaipur has a population of more than 5 lakhs but less than 50 lakhs and consequently in terms of office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 read with the letter dated 27.10.2010 referred above, the petitioner as a workman with ITDC, in my considered opinion, was rightly held by the respondents to be entitled only to 20% of basic pay as HRA. In these circumstances nonpayment of additional 5% of basic pay as HRA to the petitioner does not even remotely constitute contempt of the order passed by this Court. The contempt petition is without force. Dismissed. Notices discharged. (ALOK SHARMA), J MS/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Manoj Solanki, P.A.