Chattisgarh High Court
D. S. Mukhopadhyay vs Shri Anirban Dasgupta on 6 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:784
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 491 of 2024
D. S. Mukhopadhyay S/o Late D.P. Mukhopadhyay Aged About 71 Years
Retired As Sr. Private Secretary, P.No. 130333, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai
490001. Presently Residing At House No. 29, Block- D/4, 4th Floor,
Chouhan Green Valley, Junwani, P.O. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg
(C.G.) 490020
... Applicant
versus
1 - Shri Anirban Dasgupta Chief Executive Officer (Now Re-Designated As
Director In-Charge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India Limited, Ispat
Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 490001
2 - Shri Suraj Kumar Soni General Manager (Personnel), Bhilai Steel Plant,
Steel Authority Of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
490001
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. D.S. Mukhopadhyaya, appears in person.
For Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
06/01/2025
1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred by the applicant,
appearing in person, alleging non-compliance of this Court's order dated
02.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 259 of 2017 in its letter and spirit.
2. On 02.08.2019, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the
following order, which reads as under :-
"11. In the said circumstance, the principle of 'no work
no pay' which is embodied in the Circular referred to by
the Delhi High Court in Amar Singh vs. Union of India 1
is not at all attracted, as the mischief was done by none
other than the Respondent / Company and the reason
for denial of promotion was only for filing a writ petition
by the Petitioner; which could have been a reason at all.
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the
Petitioner is entitled to get the promotion to the
executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006 with all consequential
benefits including arrears of wages. It is ordered
accordingly. The verdict passed by the Tribunal stands
set aside. Annexure D/1 order passed by the
Respondent / Management granting only 'notional
promotion' w.e.f. 30.06.2006 stands modified to the said
extent. We are consciously refraining from awarding any
cost.
12. The Petitioner, having retired from service way
back 31.01.2013, the consequential benefits as above
shall be worked out and disbursed to the Petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three
months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment."
3. The applicant, appearing-in-person, would submit that he joined the
Bhilai Steel Plant an an Assistant (Steno-typist) on 10.10.1975 and retired
1 2002 LAB. I.C. 474
from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.01.20213. It is
contended that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2019
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in in Writ Petition (S) No. 259 of
2017, the applicant has been promoted to the Executive Cadre w.e.f.
30.06.2006 by the respondent authorities. He would contend that the
respondent authorities have also paid consequential benefits including
arrears of wages, but huge amount in various heads has not been paid,
which is about ₹ 7,80,000/-. It is contended further that earlier the
applicant was posted as non-executive cadre, subsequently, he was
promoted to the executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006. Vide Circular dated
29.04.2019, Pension Scheme for employees of Steel Authority of India
Limited (henceforth, 'SAIL') was introduced and it was effected for
employees of executive-cadre from 01.01.2007 and for the employees of
non-executive cadre, the same was effected from 01.01.2012, therefore,
as per aforesaid Circular, the applicant is entitled to get pension but the
same is not being paid to him. Thus, the applicant-appearing in person
submits that order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in WPS
No.259 of 2017 has not been complied with in its letter & spirit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents /
contemnors while referring to its its reply would submit that in compliance
of order under contempt dated 02.08.2019, the applicant was granted
promotion to the post of executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006 and he has
also been paid all consequential benefits including arrears of wages. He
further submits that earlier the applicant had filed contempt case No. 527
of 2021 stating inter alia that after payment of consequential benefits
including arrears of wages, ₹ 1,70,000/- is still outstanding amount
recoverable from respondents herein, that contempt petition was
disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
07.12.2023 granting liberty to applicant to file additional representation
along with copy of that order within 10 days from the date of passing of
said order. In pursuance thereof, the applicant filed representation to the
respondent authorities on 13.12.2023 (Annexure C-6), which has been
decided by respondent authorities by issuing regular promotion order
dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure C-9) and also provided him calculation
sheet of monetary benefits outstanding to the applicant, thus, nothing
remains to be paid to the applicant. It is next contended that so far as
contention of granting pension to the applicant is concerned, earlier the
applicant had deposited contribution amount towards SAIL corpus fund in
light of Circular dated 29th April, 2019 (Annexure C-14) issued by SAIL in
respect of pension scheme for employees of SAIL, but when the applicant
retired from service, then he had withdrawn his all the contribution
amount deposited by him. Thus, since the applicant had already
withdrawn his contribution amount, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of
pension.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Perusal of record of instant case as well as the order dated
07.12.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Contempt
Case No. 527 of 2021 would show that earlier the applicant had filed
contempt case bearing No. 527 of 2021 stating inter alia that after
payment of consequential benefits including arrears of wages in
compliance of the order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 259 of 2017, a sum of ₹ 1,70,000/- was outstanding to be paid to
him by the respondent authorities, but now the applicant has filed instant
second contempt petition stating inter alia that outstanding amount is
₹ 7,80,000/-. This fact itself shows that applicant himself is confused that
whether any amount is outstanding to be paid to him by respondent
authorities or not and, if it is, then what is the total amount. In this regard,
the applicant has also not stated specific fact in his representation
(Annexure C-6) filed by him before respondent authorities, whereas, it is
contention of respondents' counsel that all the consequential benefits
including arrears of wages has been paid to the applicant. Thus, fact
remains that whether there remains any outstanding amount to be paid to
the petitioner by respondents herein or not. This question becomes
disputed fact as, as per applicant outstanding amount has not been paid
and actual amount in this regard is also disputed, whereas it is contention
of respondents that all the outstanding amount has been paid and nothing
remains to be paid to the applicant. Such disputed question cannot be
decided in contempt petition, rather such fact give rise to new cause of
action in favour of petitioner.
7. So far as not granting pension to the petitioner is concerned, this
aspect has been raised first time by the petitioner in instant contempt
petition, as nothing has been observed by learned Division Bench in its
order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in WPS No. 259 of 2017
in this regard, therefore, compliance of such new aspect cannot be
considered in the instant contempt petition.
8. In view of above, I do not find any reason to proceed further in the
matter initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents.
9. Accordingly, contempt petition is dropped and the rule issued is
discharged. However, the applicant is at liberty to file fresh petition for
fresh cause of action, if the same exists in his favour.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amit
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.01.09
10:44:53
+0530
