Sri Suvash Chandra Mahata vs Mr. R. Duraga Shyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 1494 Cal

 19.02.2021
Item no. 39 & 40
   Aloke
  Ct. no.21
                           C.P.A.N. 922 of 2019
                                  in
                         W.P.A. 22621 of 2018

                         Sri Suvash Chandra Mahata
                                  Versus
                          Mr. R. Duraga Shyam


                         Mr. Swapan Kr. Pal
                                       ... for the petitioner

                         Mr. Avinash Kankani
                                       ... for the alleged contemnor


                      Violation is alleged of the order dated

               December 3, 2018, whereby WP 22621 (W) of 2018

               was disposed of. The operative portion of the said

               order reads as follows :

                    "Accordingly, I direct the respondent no. 2

                    to    pass   a      reasoned      order    on      the
                    representation       of    the   petitioner     made
                    through      his      learned       Advocate,       in
                    accordance          with         the      applicable

Rules/Regulations/Circulars/Notifications, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In case the respondent no. 2 deems it necessary, he will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner within a weeks from the date of the order. It is made clear that the admissible retiral benefits shall be released in favour of the

petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the order to be passed by the respondent no. 2. The pension shall also be regularly paid to the petitioner as per his entitlement. The arrear pension along with the interest at the rate of Rs.9 per cent per annum shall also be paid to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation till the date of payment."

On January 5, 2021 when this matter was taken

up for hearing, learned Advocate for the alleged

contemnor submitted that he will take instructions

as to whether or not any amount remains payable

to the petitioner in terms of this Court's order dated

December 3, 2018. It was the contention of learned

Advocate for the petitioner that the principal

amount has been paid but interest has not been

paid. Today, Mr. Kankani, learned Advocate

representing the alleged contemnor, submits that

he had written a letter to his client for ascertaining

the actual status. His letter has been replied to by

the alleged contemnor by a letter dated January 21,

2021, wherein the stand taken is that the principal

amount has been paid but the interest is not

required to be paid since the respondents in the writ

petition were not at fault. Let copy of Mr.

Kankani's letter as also the letter written in reply

thereto be kept with the records.

The order dated December 3, 2018 has not been

challenged in appeal. The order contemplates

payment of interest by the respondent to the

petitioner. The order has attained finality and is

binding on the parties. It is shocking to find that a

public officer is taking the stand that a portion of

the order need not be complied with. In effect, that

person is sitting in judgment over the Court's order.

This has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. A

case has been made out for issuance of Rule.

There will a Rule as prayed for in the contempt

petition as against the respondent.

The Rule is made returnable four weeks hence.

The petitioner shall put in special messenger

costs with the department within a week from date

to expedite service of the Rule on the respondent.

List the matter on 19.03.2021

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)