Compliance with a judicial order for monetary benefits is deemed complete if the benefits are granted and calculated, even if no actual payment is made due to the legal adjustment of previously erroneous payments made to the employee.

Order

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of order dated 09.01.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5062/2014.

2. Vide order dated 09.01.2017, the Court directed as under:

“12. As the petitioner has already been retired, he was required to take up the claim within appropriate time. However, he has filed the present petition only on 07.07.2014 i.e. after a period of almost 10 years. In view thereof and considering the law laid down in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (5)SCC 628 the relief has to be limited only for the period of three years from the date of filing of petition as it is a continuous cause of action, to which, the petitioner has been deprived and, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner has granted Ist Selection Scale w.e.f. 03.03.1986 and thereafter make re-fixation of his pay and allowances after re-adjustment, grant him Ist Selection Scale w.e.f. 03.03.1986 and thereafter The respondents will revise the petitioner’s pension and retiral benefits and release the actual arrears and benefits only w.e.f. 07.07.2011 i.e. three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The exercise as stated above, may be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

3. In compliance of order dated 08.04.2026, a compliance report has been filed on behalf of the respondents today. Vide the same, it has been submitted that the benefit of first selection grade upon completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. 03.03.1986 has been granted to the petitioner in compliance of order dated 09.01.2017. After the revision of pay in terms of the said grant, the pay difference amount came out to Rs.9520/-. But then, the petitioner had erroneously been granted the benefit of third selection grade which he was not entitled to, keeping into consideration the penalties imposed upon him. The said issue was considered in para 11 of order dated 09.01.2017 too, whereby the Court rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of third selection grade keeping into consideration his service record.

4. Therefore, an excess amount had erroneously been drawn/paid by/to the petitioner. Hence, after adjusting the excess amount already paid, no amount of the petitioner remains due as of date and hence, the Department is not required to pay any monetary benefits to him.

5. After perusing the compliance report and the computation as annexed with it, this Court is of the clear opinion that order dated 09.01.2017 stands complied with. It is evident that no amount on account of the difference in pay, pertaining to the first selection grade, remains due as on date.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the present contempt proceedings any further.

7. The contempt petition stands disposed of

8. Rule stands discharged.

9. Needless to observe that if any grievance of the petitioner other than the amount qua the first selection grade still survives, he would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.