Contempt jurisdiction must adhere to strict procedural norms and should not incorporate issues merits of the underlying dispute, as confirmed by established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 28.8.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in COCP No. 2913 of 2024.

Brief facts of the case.

2. In the year 1979, the respondent herein was appointed as a Craft Teacher in the Panchayat Samiti concerned, and her services were regularized vide order dated 4.5.1983, and, on 30.4.2014, she retired from the post of Craft Teacher. The respondent herein instituted CWP No. 8306 of 2015 before this Court with a prayer therein to direct the appellants to release her arrears of salary for the period 1.1.2006 to 31.1.2010, benefits of third ACP scale, and all retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of delay. Vide order dated 7.3.2024, the said petition was disposed by this Court. The operative part of the said order becomes extracted hereinafter:

“13. As the respondents have not released the pensionary benefits after the retirement and the petitioner is litigating the same for the last 10 years, the petitioner will also be liable for interest on the arrears/arreas of the pensionary benefits which will be released to the petitioner, keeping in view the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355, wherein it has been held that where an amount belonging to an employee, has been retained and used by the respondents, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -

“The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.”

14. The respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits for which the petitioner becomes entitled by this order, within a period of 08 weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefit of 3rd ACP which was not granted to him, hence, liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach the Department by way of appropriate representation to claim the benefit of 3rd ACP and the respondents be directed to decide the said represntation as expeditiously as possible.”

3. Subsequently CM-5415-CWP-2024 in CWP-8306-2015 became filed by the respondent herein seeking modification of the order (supra) whereby though the interest was awarded to the respondent herein but the rate thereof became not mentioned in the order (supra). Vide order dated 9.4.2024, the said application was disposed of by this Court. The operative part of the said order becomes extracted hereinafter.

“Keeping in view the fact that the interest had already been granted to the ap