Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ravi Prakash vs Satish K Kashyap on 1 May, 2023
1st May,
2023
(AK)
18-19
CPAN 931 of 2022
in
W.P.A 8620 of 2021
Ravi Prakash
Vs.
Satish K Kashyap, The General Manager, Chittranjan
Locomotive Works and others
Mr. Ujjal Ray
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee
Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee
...for the alleged contemnors.
Rule drawn in a separate sheet
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is evident even from the affidavit-in-opposition of
the alleged contemnor no.4 filed on behalf of the other
alleged contemnors that by repeated letters, two of which
have been annexed to the opposition itself, being dated
November 19 and December 24, 2022 respectively, the
said contemnor has been repeatedly placing reliance on
the earlier decision of the contemnors to transfer the
petitioner to the Sealdah Division of the concerned
railways, in blatant violation of the order of this court.
It is clear from the order in contempt that thereby,
the decision to transfer the petitioner to the Sealdah
Division was squarely set aside and direction was given to
the respondent-authorities to immediately issue a de-
categorization certificate in compliance with the previous
order of the court, in the alternative to issue a certificate
of change of occupation to the petitioner and to assign the
petitioner either to a lighter category of service in the
railways or with lighter duties in similar category as his
original post.
Such exercise was directed to be completed by the
respondent-authorities within three months from the date
of the order, that is, from January 25, 2022.
Moreover, till the new assignment was given, the
respondent-authorities were directed to disburse all
arrears of current salary to the petitioner.
Such disbursal was, latest, to be within two months
from the date of the order.
Thereafter the respondent-authorities were directed
to go on paying current salary from the month of January
2022 till the petitioner was reassigned to a post as
indicated above.
It is clear from the tenor of the letters annexed to
the affidavit-in-opposition that, in deliberate and willful
disobedience of such order of court, the respondent no.4
reiterated that during sick period the petitioner's salary
was paid up to October, 2019 and thereafter no balance
leave was there in the leave account of the petitioner;
accordingly, the salary from the month of November,
2019 could not be paid.
Apart from such disobedience with regard to
payment of the arrears to the petitioner, it was reiterated
by the said contemnor that the petitioner was to report at
the Sealdah Division, purportedly to perform light duty on
medical ground, till final decision of the Division Bench in
the appeal.
It is beyond the contemplation of this court how the
recalcitrant respondent no.4 had the audacity to
deliberately flout the specific direction of the court to
disburse all arrears to the petitioner as well as to assign a
lighter job to the petitioner, in the teeth of the stand of
the alleged contemnors themselves that there was no
lighter offering in the post to which the petitioner was
previously transferred.
In fact, such submission was the premise of setting
aside of such transfer order and the specific direction of
court to issue a certificate of change of occupation and to
assign the petitioner either to a lighter category of service
in the railways or with lighter duties in similar category
as his original post.
The letters written by the alleged contemnor clearly
indicate that the mere mention of the expression "light
duty" was used as a ruse to defeat the very purpose of the
order of this court.
In fact, it is next to impossible to assign light duty to
the petitioner or to monitor such assignment, in view of
the contemnor having repeated its illegal action in
transferring the petitioner again to the original post with
the eyewash rider "light duty".
It is also seen from the observations of the Division
Bench in the appeal preferred against the order under
contempt that the Division Bench clearly observed that
the said court did not find that the judgment and order
dated January 25, 2022 deserved to be stayed.
In view of such deemed refusal of stay, it did not lie
in the mouth of the contemnors to plead that they would
do as per their whims and fancies till final decision was
arrived at by the Division Bench.
In the teeth of such specific and deliberate contempt
of court, a Rule be issued on the respondent no.4 for the
present, keeping in abeyance the decision on whether
Rule should be issued on the other alleged contemnors
subsequently, directing the respondent no.4 to show
cause as to why strict action in terms of the prayers in
the contempt application should not be taken against the
said contemnor.
The matter, with the cause shown, shall be
returnable on June 12, 2023 when the matter shall be
listed at 2 p.m. for personal appearance of the contemnor
no.4 and for passing further orders.
Office shall take steps immediately to ensure that
the Rule is served expeditiously on the contemnor no.4.
It may be added here that although leave was
granted to learned senior counsel appearing for the
alleged contemnors to leave court on the ground of other
engagement, during the passing of the order, it is noticed
to the chagrin of court that all the counsel appearing for
the alleged contemnors have left court even while the
Rule was being issued.
Such action on the part of the learned Advocates
appearing for the contemnors is itself bordering on the
contumacious and it is expected that all the learned
advocates appearing today for the contemnors shall also
be present in court to represent the contemnors on the
next date when the matter is called on for hearing.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
