Janardan Pandit vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3149 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4043 of 2019
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3026 of 2019
     ======================================================

Janardan Pandit, Son of Late Budhi Ram, Resident of Village-New Karbigahiya, New Shakuntala Utsav Hall, Bus Stand Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India through East Central Railway, Hazipur, Pin- 800017.

2. Sri Binit Kumar Prabhakar, the Catering Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Pin- 800017.

3. Sri Ranjan Prasad Thakur, the Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Pin- 800011.

4. Sri Surjit Singh, the Senior D.P.O., East Central, Railway, Danapur, Pin 800011.

5. Sri Aadhar Raj, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Pin- 800011.

6. Sri Aadhar Raj, the Senior Divisional Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Pin- 800011.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party-UOI: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) 22-06-2022

Heard Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the Union of India.

This application has been filed by the petitioner for

initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite party nos.2

to 6 for their deliberate and willful disobedience to the direction Patna High Court MJC No.4043 of 2019(2) dt.22-06-2022

given by this Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2019 passed in

CWJC No.3026 of 2019.

The contention of the petitioner is that the

petitioner had filed CWJC No.3026 of 2019 to quash the order

dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

in O.A. No.126 of 2018 as also to quash the order dated

23.10.2017 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur

and to direct the concerned opposite parties to pay the amount

of gratuity and leave encashment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was working on the post of Catering Inspector in

East Central Railway. After his superannuation on attaining the

age of retirement, a huge amount has been recovered by the

Railway. He submitted that in terms of the order passed by this

Court on 20.02.2019 in CWJC No.3026 of 2019, the petitioner

filed a representation before the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

However, they are sitting tight over the matter. Till date, no

order has been passed. He contended that by not passing any

order on the representation of the petitioner, the opposite parties

have clearly defied the order passed by this Court on 20.02.2019

in CWJC No.3026 of 2019.

The opposite parties have filed a show cause to the Patna High Court MJC No.4043 of 2019(2) dt.22-06-2022

contempt petition filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein it has

been stated that there was no specific direction of this Court for

any answering respondent. The writ petition filed on behalf of

the petitioner was dismissed with certain observations. In that

view of the matter, there is no question of any deliberate or

willful defiance by the opposite parties to the order passed by

this Court.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

opposite parties submitted that an amount to the tune of

Rs.13,36,189/- was outstanding against the petitioner while he

was working as Catering Inspector in the East Central Railway.

The East Central Railway intimated him about the outstanding

amount of Rs. 13,36,189/-. The petitioner himself consented that

necessary deduction be made from his retirement benefit and

rest of the amount may be paid to him. Thus, pursuant to the

consent of the petitioner, the amount was deducted. Taking into

consideration all the relevant facts, this Court had dismissed the

writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the record.

On perusal of the order passed by this Court, as

contained in Annexure-1, we find that no direction was given to Patna High Court MJC No.4043 of 2019(2) dt.22-06-2022

the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner

and pass order on that. The challenge made by the petitioner to

the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in writ

petition was dismissed with observation that it would be open to

the authority to make any inquiry into the matter or fix the

liability accordingly in the event there is any scope for such

material so as to indicate the liability on the predecessor of the

petitioner.

We are of the view that the said observation was

not in the form of any direction to the benefit of the petitioner

rather it was for the Railways to initiate proceeding against the

predecessor of the petitioner, if any, responsible for committing

loss to the East Central Railway.

In that view of the matter, we see no reason to

initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. The

application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.06.2022
Transmission Date       NA