Uma Shanker Sharma vs Sri Devashish Panda ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4680 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 959 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- Uma Shanker Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Devashish Panda Prin.Secy.U.P. Govt.Deptt.Of Agriculture
 
Counsel for Applicant :- R.C. Saxena
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. 

This petition seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts' Act 1971 against the respondent-contemner for willful disobedience of judgment dated 22.2.2013 rendered in Writ Petition No.286(SS) of 2011.

It is a most unfortunate case in which although the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2009, however, was not paid his retiral dues. The petitioner had to approach this court in writ jurisdiction, whereupon a mandamus was issued directing the respondents to ensure payment to the petitioner of outstanding retiral benefits.  It was further directed that the petitioner would be paid interest at the market rate on the total amount due with effect from 01.1.2010 till the actual date when the payment is made.

The order was not obeyed , whereupon this petition came to be filed.

Notices were issued in April 2013.

This Court was constrained on passing order 11.7.2013, thereby summoning Sri Devashish Panda, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P., to Court.  Gist of the issue/conduct of the contemner is reflected in order dated 11.7.2013, which for brevity's sake is extracted herebelow:

"1. This petition seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of order dated 22.2.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.286 (S/S) of 2011.

2. Counter affidavit filed in the Court today, is taken on record.

3. As per facts stated in para 6 of the affidavit, it is made evident that order of this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. Order dated 7.5.2013 has been passed on the representation of the petitioner.

4. Vide order dated 7.5.2013, it has been conveyed that for the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, there were some misconducts conducted by the petitioner on account of which some retiral benefits have been withheld. It transpires that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2009. Order passed by the respondent does not indicate whether any chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner and order of penalty has been imposed. Under the circumstances, the reason or justification to deduct amount has not been given in the order.

5. This Court is not able to consider how retiral benefits have been withheld. Relevant particulars having not been given in the decision on the representation, it cannot be said that the order is speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. Needless to say that purported compliance is much beyond the provided period of six weeks from the date of the order.

6. The deponent contemner Devashish Panda, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P. is directed to remain present in this Court on 29.7.2013 with explanation on the above issues and as to why for not complying with the spirit of the judgment, proceedings be be not initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. List this case on 29.7.2013."

Sri B.M. Singh, Director, Agriculture, is present in court and appears to be the person and authority, who was also required to take decision in regard to release of retiral dues of the petitioner.

It transpires that so as to get away from the responsibility of obeying the order of this court, an order was passed giving frivolous, uncalled for and vague reasons for denying retiral dues to the petitioner.  Somuch so departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which this court considers as in counterblast to the petitioner's approaching a Court of Law for his dues.

When reason is required to be given for denying a benefit, a legal basis or plausible cause is required to be given. Justification of the action or explanation of a belief is required to be detailed to say that for the said reason relief cannot be allowed. Conclusion is required to be drawn by an authority for denying a benefit on the basis of a logical deduction and comprehension. In the case in hand, after the employee (the petitioner) had attained age of superannuation, certain issues relating to the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were raked up to withhold retiral benefits. The service of the petitioner was governed under the Service Rules and, therefore, any penalty of pecuniary nature could only be imposed in accordance with Rules. Admittedly, no such disciplinary proceeding has been held in accordance with Rules so as to reach a conclusion that the petitioner had misconducted and, therefore, had been penalised, on account of which the retiral benefits had been withheld. Absence of such reasons have enabled this court to conclude that the conduct of the respondents in denying retiral benefits to the petitioner, despite his right, is a result of an uncalled for and an illegal action.

This Court has been informed by Sri B.M. Singh, Director, Agriculture, that all the departmental proceedings against the petitioner have been withdrawn and retiral dues have been released.

Admittedly, till date, interest has neither been calculated nor paid to the petitioner, thus, even on date the contemner is in contempt.

Be that as it may, an undertaking has been given that the interest amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within forty-five days from today.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances emanating from the proceedings in court today and the documents available on record, it becomes evident that an attempt has been made to over-owe the court by not complying with the order of this court and releasing retiral dues to the petitioner.  Various methods were used for the said purpose by way of passing order dated 07.5.2013 on vague grounds.  Legal or specific reasons were not assigned while denying relief to the petitioner.  Subsequently, even departmental proceedings were initiated which, later, admittedly have been withdrawn.  This Court deprecates this practice of the contemners and records displeasure of the Court through this order.

Unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered by Sri B.M. Singh, Director, Agriculture, and by Sri Devashish Panda, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P., which is accepted.  This is particularly so because Sri Panda has assured this Court that appropriate directions would be issued to the concerned branches of the Department to ensure that papers of retiring employees are processed and prepared well in advance so that inconvenience is not caused to them in release of retiral dues at the time of superannuation.

In view of above, this petition is disposed of. 

However, considering the conduct of the respondent-contemner and the Director, Department of Agriculture, Lucknow, Sri B.M. Singh, who has been heard today in court, this court impose cost amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) to be paid to Oudh Bar Association.

Let the payment be made within five days from today.  The amount shall be deducted from the  salary of the officer/official, who is found responsible for delaying the proceedings of the Court and delaying the implementation of the order of this court.

Order Date :- 29.7.2013

A.Nigam