AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sonia Gokani, J
In this application for contempt of Court preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Contempt of Court's
Act, the following order came to be passed on 03.07.2020 as under:-
On 18.06.2020, while issuing notice, we recorded thus:
“The applicant is the original petitioner of Special Civil application No. 1320 of 2004, which was decided in favour of the applicant on
8.6.017 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Thaker). After seeking condonation of delay of 586 days, Letters Patent Appeal was
preferred being LPA No. 1529 of 2019 and this court (Coram : Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
S. R. Brahmbhatt) on 12th September, 2019.
While allowing the appeal, the court directed in particular as follows, “It goes without saying that the heir of the deceased employee may accept
with little modification in the direction that the deceased employee’s heir may be given all the monetary benefits admissible to the employee, as if,
he had been in service and retired on attaining the age of superannuation, in case, if his superannuation had not been falling on or before 12.3.2011 and
in case if his superannuation was falling prior thereto, then notional treating him to be in service till his death and reckon the benefits based thereupon,
and all the consequential benefits arising on that basis, the same shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased employee.â€
No challenge has been raised to the said decision as has been submitted by learned advocate for the applicant and as has been confirmed by
learned Court Master through website of the Apex Court.
By way of this application, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, request is made to initiate action for deliberate disobedience of non-compliance
of the judgment and order of this court.
On hearing learned advocate Mr. M. A. Shah for the applicant and having perused the material before us, we deem it appropriate to issue Notice to
respondent No.3 who is implementing authority and who has given reply to the applicant on 22nd October, 2019, and who is fully aware about the
outcome of the LPA 1529 of 2019. 6. Accordingly, Notice is issued to respondent No.3, making it returnable on 3rd July, 2020.
Considering the High Court Rules, the alleged contemnor is required to file reply a week before the returnable date,if he so desires. Respondent
no.3 shall file the reply on or before 26.6.2020 with a copy to the other side by E-mode.â€
Learned AGP, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, appearing for the respondent-Collector has shared some of the communications received by her, which
reveals that, after the Division Bench passed the order on 12.09.2019, the opinion was sought by Office of the Collector through office of the
Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat. Such opinion, as requested for, was sent to the Office of the Collector, Kuchh on 27.11.2019, where, it
has been specifically opined that this matter does not require to be carried forward. She also, further, submitted that the Collector, Kachh, thereafter,
proceeded to send the matter to the Revenue Department on 06.02.2020. The Revenue Department had proceeded to arrange for the disbursement
through GAD, when GAD opined to prefer SLP. Thereafter, Revenue Department sent the matter to the Legal Department for approval on
20.06.2020. She, further, has urged that she requires one week’s time. At the time of issuing notice, though, this Court had directed that the reply
to be filed within one week, no reply has been filed.
This has been strongly objected to by the learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, who has urged that the petitioner lady is waiting for family pensions since
2004, She also had communicated, after the outcome of LPA, to the Collector, Kachh, by way of her communication dated 21.10.2019. He also has
drawn the attention of the Bench to the communication dated 22.10.2019, received from the Chitnis to the Collector, Kachh-Bhuj, where, it is
categorically stated that the communication has already been forwarded to the State Government, inquiring from it, as to whether, the LPA Bench
order is to be accepted or not. Once the communication is received from the State Government, the order shall be implemented.
3.1He has made a grievance that till date nothing has been heard from the Office of the Collector and the lady working as a domestic help is hand to
mouth, more particularly, due to the present pandemic on account of Covid-19 virus.Noticing the chronology of the events and the pitiable economic
condition of the petitioner, who needed to wait all these years, the request on the part of the learned AGP to grant her time to file reply, we are
disinclined to accept. We expect that requisite sensitivity shall be shown in this matter, where, the opinion of the Office of the Government Pleader
was received on 20.11.2019 by the collector and when no SLP till date is filed ,we deem it appropriate to DIRECT the compliance and fix the matter
on 08.07.2020 for the said purpose. In case of failure, the Secretary (Legal) shall personally REMAIN PRESENT before this Court through video
conference, on the next date.
5.S.O. to 8thJuly, 2020. Let an E-COPY of this order be given to the learned AGP, Ms. Tripathi, today, for her onward communication and due
compliance.â€
Thereafter, on 13.07.2020 on receiving the details from the both the sides, the following order came to be passed on 13.07.2020:
“1.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2020, today, the Secretary, Legal Department, has not remained present before this Court.
However, we may not insist on his presence, in wake of the two communications, both dated 07.07.2020, where, the Revenue Department has
addressed a communication to the Collector, Kutchh-Bhuj and has directed to pay all the benefits, including the incidental benefits, subject to the
outcome of the SLP, which is contemplated to be preferred. As yet, another communication dated 03.07.2020, which has come from the Mamlatdar
Office, Bhachau, Kachchh, specifying as to the amount, which needs to be disbursed to the widow of the employee.
We have heard the learned AGP, Ms.Patel, who has urged that the amount of Leave Encashment shall be paid to the widow of the employee
today, itself, and other benefits shall be paid within next two-three days. She has also been given the instructions that no SLP has been preferred, till
date. She, further, ensures to get the calculations from the concerned department and bring on record the same, on the next date, and has urged that
the compliance is underway, and therefore, this Court may pass other and further orders on the next date.
Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, has strongly objected to the same, as according to him, that this has been made subject to the outcome of the SLP,
which is to be filed, yet. Further, there is no clarification, as to how the calculation is to be arrived at and the mode and the premises of calculation
appears to be the date of his joining the service and not the date of his demise.
We had found the need to direct the Secretary, Legal Department, to remain present before this Court for the non-compliance of the order of the
Division Bench, in wake of the details that we have mentioned in the order dated 03.07.2020, noticing the conduct on the part of the government
departments. Today also, it has been mentioned that subject to the outcome of the SLP, which is not filed, yet, compliance shall be made soon.
Further, there is neither any Diary number given of the matter of the Apex Court nor any other detail is furnished, reflective of the seriousness on the
part of the respondent. However, in wake of the two communications dated 07.07.2020, we are neither insisting on the presence of the Secretary,
Legal Department, nor of any other officer, any further. Let the disbursement take place, today, and in the next two days’ time. The detailed
calculations shall be furnished before this Court by the learned APP, on taking necessary instructions. The amount shall be directly credited in the
bank account of the widow of the employee, the details whereof, she has already furnished and shared with the opponent-State.
5.S.O. to 17THJULY, 2020. No further time shall be sought, on the next date.â€
It has been reflected in the earlier order that the payment, as was necessary to be made to the applicant, was subject to the outcome of the SLP,
which has not been preferred till date. We have also on our last order made a mention that the Diary number of the matter preferred before the Apex
Court is also not mentioned.
As there is a complete absence of any other detail, insisting on making of the payment subject to the outcome of the SLP is strongly objected to by
the learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah for the applicant. He also further has urged that amount of Rs.22,700/- by way of revised 6th Pay Commission
amount and revised gratuity amount of Rs.75,588/-, in total, amount of Rs 98,288/-, still remains to be paid.
According to Learned Advocate, the sum of Rs.15,52,581/- has already been disbursed in favour of the applicant. The same has been received on
different dates.
Having heard the learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah for the applicant and Mr.Soni, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, it is given to
understand by the learned AGP that the amount of Rs.22,700/- , to be paid by way of amount of revised 6th Pay Commission, has already been given
and the revised gratuity amount of Rs.75,588/- shall follow the suit.
With the disbursement of the sum of Rs.15,52,581/- and the revised 6th Pay Commission amount of R.22,700/- having already reached the bank
account of the present applicant, the opponents have substantially made payments, subject of course to the payment of the revised gratuity amount.
Learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah for the applicant, of course, has raised the dispute with regard to the non- payment of the 7th Pay commission,
which according to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Soni for the respondent-State, has already been paid. He also showed the detailed
calculations, the document of which has been shared with the other side also. There appears to be specific reference of the 7th Pay Commission.
However, after taking necessary instructions, if any, the amount is missed out, learned advocate for the applicant will communicate to the opponent for
the said purpose after verifying thoroughly the entire details. Considering the compliance, the opponents since have purged themselves of the
allegations of contempt, the petition is being disposed of.
Since the SLP has not been preferred, till date, nor its diary number also is reflected anywhere in the application, to insist on the applicant to write
in the receipt or endorsement that this will be subject to the SLP is unacceptable and any such reference in any of the receipts Issued by the applicant
shall not be construed as conditional disbursements.