HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 863/2011

1. Rajendra Kumar Saxena, Husband of late Smt. Manorma

Saxena, Age about 68 years, Resident of 84/100, Dhawalgiri

Marg, Mansarover, Jaipur.

2. Ashish Kumar Saxena, Son of Rajendra Kumar Saxena, age 25

years,Resident of 84/100, Dhawalgiri Marg, Mansarover, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Shashikala Sharma, the Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya

Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Limited, Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani

Singh Marg, Jaipur

2. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, the General manager, Rajasthan

Rajya Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Limited, Sahakar Bhawan,

Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Dev Krishan Purohit through VC

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

18/01/2022

This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-

compliance of order dated 13.08.2010 passed in SB Civil Writ

Petition No.2307/1993.

In present case, petitioners are legal representatives of

deceased-Smt. Manorma Saxena, who was appointed on

08.11.1979 as salesman in Rajasthan Rajya Upbhokta Sahakari

Sangh Limited and her services were terminated on 20.09.1986 in

a disciplinary enquiry. Later on, mater reached before Prescribed

Authority under Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments

Act, 1958 who passed orders for restatement with 50%

backwages. The Corporation has assailed order of restatement and

payment of 50% backwages by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition

No.2307/1993 which came to be decided vide order dated

13.08.2010.

This Court, has held that in order to maintain balance of

equities, legal heirs of deceased employee would be entitled only

(2 of 2)

[CCP-863/2011]

25% of dues along with interest @ 6% and with such modification,

writ petition was disposed of.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have

not made payment pursuant to order dated 13.08.2010,

therefore, instant contempt was filed on 06.09.2011.

Learned counsel for respondents have filed reply to contempt

petition on 28.02.2012 and contended that respondents have paid

due amount of Rs.1,71,274/- to petitioners as full and final

payment and petitioners are not entitled to receive any more

amount, thus, order dated 13.08.2010 has been complied with.

Although, counsel for petitioner does not dispute the

remittance of aforesaid amount by respondents, however, he

disputes that this is not 25% of amount along with interest as

payable under order dated 13.08.2010.

This Court is of opinion that substantial compliance of order

dated 13.08.2010 have been made by respondents and even if as

per petitioner some amount or interest amount is due, in the

proceedings of contempt, no such adjudication can be made.

Otherwise also the issue of dues pertains to the termination of

salesman wayback on 20.09.1986 i.e. more than 25 years old,

therefore, in backdrop of aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined

to keep the issue pending anymore. Since substantial compliance

has been made, there is no purpose to continue contempt

proceedings against respondents and this contempt petition

deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notices of

contempt stands discharged.

All pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN/84