Dibyendu Chakraborty vs Arun Arora & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 232 Cal

 01,02
09.01.2023

mb

C.P.A.N. 199 of 2022 in WP.CT 69 of 2018

Dibyendu Chakraborty Vs.

Arun Arora & Ors.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray, Mr. Indranath Mitra, Mr. Subhankar Das, Mr. Neil Basu ... for the petitioner

Mr. Atarup Banerjee ... for the alleged contemnors

Learned counsel for the petitioner hands over a

copy of the office order dated December 19, 2022,

which inter alia indicates that the period from July 04,

2011 (the date of dismissal of the petition) to December

01, 2021 (the date of judgment of this Court) was

treated as 'dies non'. It is pointed out that a

subordinate officer, being an Assistant Personnel

Officer, signing apparently for the Senior Divisional

Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, has

issued such order in gross derogation of the tenor of

the order of this Court as affirmed up to the Supreme

Court.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it

transpires that learned counsel for the alleged

contemnors apparently has no instruction with regard

to the office order, a copy of which is handed over to

him today.

However, it is not in doubt that the Special Leave

Petition preferred against the Division Bench order of

this Court was dismissed as far back as in the month

of July, 2022. It remains unexplained as to why the

entire amount due to the petitioner has not yet been

disbursed by the alleged contemnors.

Be that as it may, the matter is adjourned till

January 16, 2023, when it will be listed under the

same heading at 2.00 p.m.

Learned counsel for the alleged contemnors shall

file a written explanation as to the issuance of the

instruction dated December 19, 2022 where the

period-in-question has been treated to be 'dies non'

despite the specific order of this court which has been

affirmed up to the Supreme Court.

It is expected that the alleged contemnors shall,

through their counsel, clearly stipulate a last date, not

later than a fortnight hence, for disbursal of the entire

due amounts to the petitioner.

It is made clear that the contempt application is

kept pending and the issuance of rule with regard to

the contempt application is kept reserved, depending

on the response of the alleged contemnors on the next

returnable date.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)