DAULAT RAM v. ANU RADHA GUPTA,ADM.C.C.B.LTD.AND ANR.
CPSW/385/2017 · 2026-04-30
body2017
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2017 DAILYLAW 1285 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2017 DAILYLAW 1285 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CJ Court Case: CPSW No. 385/2017 in SWP No. 818/2017
Daulat Ram ….. Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: None Vs
Anu Radha Gupta, Adm. C.C.B. Ltd. & Anr. .…. Respondent(s)
Through: None
Coram:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER 30.04.2026
Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent-Authorities for willful disobedience of the
order dated April 06, 2017 rendered in SWP No. 818/2017 (Daulat Ram V/s State of J&K & Ors.).
A bare reading of the order referred to above reveals that the petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the Writ Court with a direction to respondent No. 3 and 4 to process the claim of the petitioner for retiral dues, for, he has already superannuated in the year 2012 and yet he was deprived of the retiral benefits.
The statement of facts on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed and Para No. 4 thereof reads as thus:
“The fact is that the answering respondent considered the representation of the petitioner which he had made and after considering the same and taking into consideration that in the course of his service as branch Manager, the petitioner had been floating the instructions of the District Manager. He had been served a charge sheet on 12-June 2010 vide head office no. Admn/4299-4301 through registered letter and despite that petitioner continued advancing unauthorized loan. The District Manager Rajouri vide no. Dmr/640/10 dated 10-Nov 2016 had made recommendations that the recoveries of loans advanced by the petitioner were very rare. He had given the details of the amounts outstanding and the interest there on and the total Sr.No. 74
2
amount exceeded to the tune of Rs. 16276097/- as on 31-03-2016 and for these reasons his claim for retrial benefits were rejected vide order dated 20-11-2017. Copy of the same is enclosed and marked as Annexure A.”
In the wake of the above, nothing substantive survives in the petition, the same is disposed of as such.
( (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 30.04.2026 Suraj K. Singh