9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Implementation of directions issued by the Supreme Court in a writ petition regarding family pension. 2. Allegation of forged documents presented in court. 3. Non-compliance with court orders leading to contempt petitions. 4. Discrepancy in calculation of family pension amount. 5. Dispute over the last pay drawn by the deceased husband affecting pension entitlement. 6. Evaluation of contempt charges against the Respondents. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a contempt petition filed regarding the implementation of directions issued by the Supreme Court in a writ petition concerning the determination of family pension for the Petitioner, a widow. The initial writ petition highlighted the inadequate family pension being paid to her after her husband's demise in 1980. The Supreme Court directed the determination of family pension in accordance with relevant government orders within three months, which was to be paid to the Petitioner after necessary calculations. The contempt petition was filed due to alleged non-compliance with these directions. 2. Another contempt petition was filed, alleging the presentation of forged and fabricated documents by the official Respondents during the proceedings. However, the Court noted that the issues crystallized differently post the order dated 1.9.2010, focusing on compliance with directions rather than the alleged misconduct. As a result, Contempt Petitions 6/2009 and 7/2009 were closed, and the Court proceeded with Contempt Petition 3/2012, emphasizing compliance with the previous order. 3. The Petitioner in Contempt Petition 3/2012 claimed that the Accountant General of the State of Uttar Pradesh failed to calculate the pension amount as directed by the Court. The Respondents, including the Chief Secretary and the Accountant General, submitted affidavits stating that the pension was being paid regularly, with calculations based on the last pay drawn by the deceased husband. The Court evaluated these submissions to determine compliance with its previous orders. 4. A discrepancy arose regarding the last pay drawn by the deceased husband, impacting the calculation of the family pension amount. The Petitioner contended that the last pay was higher than stated, leading to a claim for a higher pension. However, conflicting documents and statements regarding the last pay drawn created disputed facts, complicating the assessment of the correct pension entitlement. 5. To establish contempt, the Court needed to ascertain if the Respondents willfully disobeyed the Court's order. Given the shifting stand of the Petitioner and the lack of undisputed facts, the Court concluded that there was no clear evidence of contempt. Consequently, Contempt Petition 3/2012 was dismissed, and Contempt Petitions 6/2009 and 7/2009 were closed, as no willful disobedience was established based on the available evidence.
|
