Tushar Kanti Satpathi vs Dr. Sanjeev Ranjar & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1185 Cal

 03, 04
13.02.2023
   mb

                      C.P.A.N. 209 of 2022
                               in
                       WP.CT 103 of 2014

                     Tushar Kanti Satpathi
                               Vs.
                    Dr. Sanjeev Ranjar & Anr.

                 Mr. S.K. Dutta,
                 Mr. Barun Chatterjee
                                  ... for the petitioner
                 Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi,
                 Mr. Praloy Bhattacharyya
                                  ... for the alleged contemnors

                 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

             contends that even in terms of the Rules of the

             respondent-authorities/alleged     contemnors,      interest

ought to have been paid on the entire amount directed

to be paid by this Court, since such order was passed

by this court in the month of November 2021 and the

payment was started to be made only in the month of

November, 2022, that is, about one year after the said

order, despite the specific direction in the order to

make the payments within two months therefrom.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the

entire period due to belated payment.

Learned counsel places reliance on the

supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in this

context as well as the Rules and the judgment of the

Supreme Court and this Court annexed thereto.

Learned counsel appearing for the alleged

contemnors submits that there were no deliberate

laches on the part of the alleged contemnors in the

delay occasioned in commencement of disbursal of the

due amount.

It is submitted on behalf of the alleged

contemnors that there are internal procedures to be

followed by governmental authorities, for which the

matter moved inter-department for some time and, as

soon as possible, the disbursal of the amount was

commenced in the month of November, 2022 and

completed within January, 2023.

As such, it is argued that there was no fault on

the part of the alleged contemnors in that regard.

Moreover, by placing reliance on Rule 68 of the extant

Rules, it is argued that the interest on delayed

payment of gratuity is only to be paid in the event it

was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses.

It is submitted that since the entitlement of the

petitioner to get the dues started only on the passing of

the order of this Court, it cannot be said that there

were any lapses attributable to administrative reasons

retrospectively.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is

evident from the materials on record that the alleged

contemnors started disbursal of the amount, directed

by this court in November, 2021, only in the month of

November, 2022.

Although the direction was specific that the

payment ought to have been made within two months

from the date of the order, the period of about ten

months thereafter taken by the alleged contemnors to

start the disbursal is categorically deprecated. It is

expected that government officials ought to be more

diligent and sensitive, at least in cases where the

amounts directed to be paid to ex-employees of the

government itself are concerned.

Be that as it may, since certain inevitable

circumstances have been cited by the alleged

contemnors for the delay occasioned in making

payments, we are not inclined to grant interest on the

amount payable by the alleged contemnors during the

relevant period; more so, since the initial order, of

which contempt has been alleged herein, did not

envisage any payment of interest for the period after

the expiry of two months from the said order. In the

absence of any such specific direction in the order

itself, it would be rather beyond the jurisdiction of this

court, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, to pass such a

fresh direction for payment of interest.

However, the argument of the petitioner to the

effect that the Rules provide for interest on delayed

payment of gratuity, cannot be accepted in view of the

settled position of law that such Rules cannot be said

to have been applicable even after the passing of the

order by this Court, by when the petitioner was no

longer in the post and had been superannuated.

The Rules, if at all, as per our order were

applicable at best for the period prior to the passing of

the order and no retrospective effect can be given to the

Rules for the purpose of calculating interest for the

subsequent non-payment.

Moreover, even a perusal of the judgment cited by

learned counsel for the petitioner does not impress

upon this court that interest should be granted in

cases where the same was not directed to be paid by

the original order, which is under contempt, thereby

substantially widening the contempt jurisdiction and

modifying the initial order.

In the event the petitioner was aggrieved by the

absence of any direction of payment of interest in the

initial order, it was open to the petitioner to challenge

the said order before a superior forum. When the order

has already attained finality, it does not lie in the

mouth of the petitioner now to claim subsequent

interest for delayed payment by the alleged

contemnors.

Accordingly, C.P.A.N. 209 of 2022 is disposed of

with the observation that the alleged contemnors have,

by January, 2023, cleared all the dues as per the order

of this Court, contempt of which was alleged.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)