Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Kumar Ojha vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 540 of 2022
Vikash Kumar Ojha, aged about 64 years, son of Late Hardeo Ojha,
Resident of N-4, Tilak Nagar, Near Hope Residency, P.O. Lohia
Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District - Patna (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Amit Kumar, son of not know to the petitioner, Managing Director
- cum - Chairman, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. Harmu,
P.S. - Argora, District - Ranchi/Jharkhand
3. Pankaj Kumar Sahw, son of now know to the petitioner, the
Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. Harmu, P.S. -
Argora, District - Ranchi / Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Opp. Party- Housing Board: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Adv.
---
06/19.07.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt
proceeding against the opposite parties for non-compliance of order
dated 12.03.2022 passed by this Court in Contempt Case (Civil)
No.232 of 2021.
3. The learned counsel submits that a show cause has been filed in
the present case and as per para - 7 and 8, amount of group insurance
and gratuity is payable to the petitioner, but the opposite party has
written letter to the Life Insurance Corporation of India for release of
the amount. Both the letters are dated 21.09.2022 and same reason
has been shown non-payment. He has further submitted that in para 9
of the show cause, it has been mentioned that an amount of
Rs.6,10,705.60 is due to the petitioner, but the same has not been
disbursed because the petitioner's reply was in violation of the PWD
code and vide letter No.15430 dated 22.12.2017, the Superintendent of
Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau had stated that Bariyatu P.S. Case
No.20 of 2012 was pending against the petitioner and therefore the
petitioner has not been paid MACP payments in accordance with 7th
pay revision.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that
earlier one contempt application was filed arising out of the same
order in the writ petition being contempt case (Civil) No.232 of 2021,
which was sent to Lok Adalat and the present counsel of the petitioner
was also present in Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat, it was recorded
that a show cause was filed mentioning that an amount of
Rs.8,29,540/- which was admitted dues, had already been paid to the
petitioner and it was also observed that if the petitioner was still
aggrieved, he may take recourse available under law and the contempt
proceeding was dropped. He submits that the present petition has been
filed again in connection with the same order which was subject
matter of consideration in Contempt Case (Civil) No.232 of 2021. He
has submitted that the 2nd contempt is not maintainable and the
petitioner could have taken steps in terms of the order passed in Lok
Adalat or if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have taken
recourse available under law.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble supreme Court reported in (2006)
8 SCC 364 (State of Punjab Vs. Ganpat Raj). He has referred to para
7 of the said judgment.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.2391 of 2020
which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2020 enabling the
petitioner to file a fresh representation, along with the documents on
which the petitioner was relying, before the Managing Director of the
Housing Board, who was to take decision in accordance with
applicable rules, regulation and guidelines and it was also observed
that admitted dues decided in favour of the petitioner will be released
in his favour within a period of 8 weeks.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt application before
this Court being Contempt Case (Civil) No.232 of 2021 alleging non
compliance of the writ order which was referred to Lok Adalat.
During Lok-Adalat, it was recorded that as per the show cause,
admissible amount of Rs.8,29,540/- was paid and it was further
observed that if the petitioner was still aggrieved, he could take
recourse available under law and contempt proceeding was dropped.
8. From perusal of the order passed in the Lok Adalat, it appears
that admissible amount stood paid to the petitioner and at the same
time, if the petitioner had any grievance, he could take recourse to law
and the contempt was dropped. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
present contempt petition alleging violation of the same order passed
by the writ court.
9. This Court is of the considered view that at the stage of Lok
Adalat, the admissible dues stood paid to the petitioner as recorded in
the order passed in Lok Adalat and therefore, no contempt is made out
as there was a direction to pay admissible dues to the petitioner. This
Court also finds that as per the show cause filed, there are two dues
which are to be remitted by the Life Insurance Corporation i.e.
gratuity and group insurance and so far as 7th pay revision is
concerned, the same has not been paid by stating that the petitioner's
reply was in violation of P.W.D Code and that as per the letter dated
22.12.2017 of the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
P.S Case No.20 of 2012 is pending against the petitioner. However,
pendency of this criminal case has been denied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
10. Considering the order passed in Lok Adalat arising out of the
earlier contempt petition, this Court is of the considered view that the
admissible dues as per the order of Lok Adalat having been paid, the
present contempt proceeding is not maintainable.
11. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2006) 8 SCC 364 (supra) is concerned the same does not
apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case,
order passed in Lok Adalat was subject matter of challenge and in that
background, it was held that the case did not involve compromise or
settlement and could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. The
petitioner has not challenged the order passed in Lok Adalat and has
filed fresh contempt petition.
12. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
