Tripura High Court
Nataraj Datta vs Dr. K. Sasikumar & Ors on 21 May, 2024
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont. Cas(C) No.18 of 2024
Nataraj Datta
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Dr. K. Sasikumar & Ors.
......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
: Dr. M.L. Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General.
: Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
: Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
: Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Adv.
: Ms. A. Chakraborty, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
_O_R_D_E_R_
21.05.2024
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General appearing
for the respondent nos.1,3,4, & 5.
Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
respondent no.2 as well as Mr. P. K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent no.6.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel at the outset submits that all
the directions as per the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.377 of 2023 have been complied with by the respondents except the
part that no interest on the gratuity amount was provided for delayed
payment in terms of provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Mr.
Bhattacharjee, learned counsel also referred to para no.28 of the said
judgment & order to the effect that this Court directed the respondents
to make payment within 8(eight) weeks from the date of judgment of all
post-retiral benefits to the petitioner as per 3(three) schemes as
mentioned in paragraph no.28 of the judgment apart from other benefits,
if any, which he was otherwise entitled as per other rules/laws.
On that underscored part, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel gave
his emphasis that as per that direction, the petitioner is now also entitled
to get statutory interest under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 for such delayed payment and also entitled to gratuity amount as
per the enhanced ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000/- lakhs in terms of said
Act.
On the other hand, Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General submits
that there is a gross difference between a proceeding under contempt of
Court Act and a proceeding for execution of a order of the Court and so
far the contempt of court is concerned, conscious and willful disobedience
shall have to be proved by the petitioner and if any such willful
disobedience cannot be shown, no further order for granting any relief
can be granted under any contempt proceeding.
Considered rival submissions.
From the judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed in said WP(C) No.377
of 2023 itself, it is apparent that no specific direction was given to the
respondent for making any payment of gratuity amount or interest as per
the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act and only direction was given for
making payment as per 3(three) LIC schemes as it reflected in the para
no.28 of the judgment. This Court is of the view that under the garb of
provisions of Contempt of Court Act, further entitlement, if any, of the
petitioner under any other law cannot be re-adjudicated. So far, the
compliance of the directions by the respondents is concerned, this Court
is not inclined to pass any further order in this regard for making
payment of any other relief or post-retiral benefits to the petitioner going
beyond what was directed in the said judgment. However, it is always
open to the petitioner to lodge his claim, if any, in the appropriate forum
in accordance with Law.
With such observations, the proceeding is hereby dropped.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2024.05.24 13:06:15 +05'30'
Riki
