Karan Chandra Hembrom vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This contempt application has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 18.02.2015, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3767 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the following directions have been passed.

"In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage giving direction to the respondent no.1 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand to treat this writ petition as representation and take decision in view of the statements made by the authorities in paragraph-21 of the counter-affidavit, as quoted herein above, and expedite the matter, so that the petitioner shall be paid the admitted retiral dues within a reasonable period.

It is expected from the respondent no.1 to complete the exercise so that the admitted amount shall be released within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

If the said amount is not released within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be entitled to get statutory interest @ 8% per annum from due date of payment till its final realization.

However, if any amount is disputed by the respondents on any ground whatsoever, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within the period aforesaid."

It has been gathered by this Court on going through the record that after passing of the aforesaid order, the same has been brought to the notice of the authority by way of representation dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure-2).

The Opposite Parties have filed several show causes, first one was dated 12.07.2016, wherein, the stand, inter alia, has been taken that after the order having been communicated to the Office of the Accountant General, from where correspondence has been made vide letter no.-745, dated 31.07.2015 by which certain queries have been raised to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand upon which the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand has sought direction from the department with regard to the final disposal of the pension and Gratuity of the petitioner. The Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no.-3305, dated 08.07.2016 has issued direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand to comply the objection raised by the Accountant General, Jharkhand for release of the pension of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines contained in letter No. 115, dated 29.03.2010, issued by the Finance Department. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand vide letter no.-2495 dated-09.07.2016 has complied the query raised by the Accountant General for final sanction of Gratuity and pension of the petitioner. Thereafter, the admitted amount has been paid in favour of the petitioner.

It is evident from the order passed by this Court in the instant contempt case, dated 30th June, 2016, that there is a direction upon the Opposite Party to pass a reasoned order as per the direction of this Court, failing which on the next date of hearing, the Secretary, Department of Forests and Environment, Government of Jharkhand shall remain personally present. However, if the order is passed and if the affidavit is filed, then there is no need to remain present by the said Officer. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from one date to another.

Subsequent to the show cause dated 12.07.2016, one another show cause was filed on 27.03.2018, wherein, the Opposite Party has come out with the stand that the admitted amount has been paid, but, there is some delay in disbursement of the said amount, due to the reason that the service book of the petitioner was traceless and the petitioner has not extended co-operation in re-casting of the service book and in view of such ground, the interest, as has been directed by this Court in the order passed by the writ Court to the effect that if the admitted amount would not be paid within a period of eight weeks, the interest @ 8 per cent shall have to be paid from due date till the date of realization, has been denied.

Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the question of maintaining the service book, it is purely under the domain of the State authority and if the same has become traceless, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. If the service book has become traceless, the authority ought to have prepared the same six months prior to the date of superannuation of the concerned employee but the efforts had been taken by the State authority for tracing out the service book only after the writ Court has passed an order. The further contention is that when the representation has been filed on 17.03.2015 in terms of the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3767 of 2014, the Principal Secretary and the office of the Accountant General has made a communication to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand by making a query and that has been satisfied by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand only on 09.07.2016, almost after one year, hence, it cannot be said that there is no deliberate and willful non-compliance of the order passed by this Court, so far as it relates to the payment of interest @ 8 per cent on account of default in making the payment within the period of eight weeks as directed by this Court.

This Court after appreciating the stand in the show cause and considering the averments made therein is of the view that the provision of Section 2 (C) of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 deals with initiating a proceeding for punishing the authority for their willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order passed either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court.

The prime question, which is to be considered by the High Court or the Supreme Court in view of the Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971, the question of willful and deliberate non-compliance will have to be looked into on the basis of the conduct of the opposite Party, upon whom, the order has been directed to be complied with.

It cannot be disputed herein, that the petitioner in terms of the order, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3767 of 2014 has made representation on 17.03.2015, upon which the Accountant General has started taking initiative to disburse the pensionary benefits and in consequence thereof, a communication has been sent on 31.07.2015, addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand who has satisfied only on 09.07.2016, therefore, there is about one year delay in satisfying the office of the Accountant General on the part of the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and, as such, it cannot be said that there is no willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order for the reason, that if any query has been made by the office of the Accountant General, it was incumbent upon the State authority to forthwith act upon and give response to the office of the Accountant General keeping the fact into consideration that the High Court has passed an order for compliance of the Court's order within the period of eight weeks but the authority has taken the same in a very casual manner and, as such, it cannot be said that there is no willful and deliberate action on the part of the Opposite parties to flout the order, although the admitted amount has been paid, but with some delay.

Mr. B. B. Sinha, learned G.A. II appearing for the Opposite Party-State has submitted that the reason for delay in making payment is that the service book of the petitioner was traceless.

The question, herein, is that the service book is totally to be prepared by the employer and it is to be kept in the safe custody by the employer and if it has become traceless, it is the authority, who has to take the responsibility of keeping the service book and not the employee, as has been gathered in the second show cause dated 28.03.2018 wherein explanation has been furnished that since the service book was traceless, therefore, some delay has been caused and accepting the same, the authority also cannot be said to be scot-free for the reason that if the service book was traceless as per the pension Scheme and the prevailing Pension Rules, to disburse the pension, the documentation is to be prepared within a period of six months prior to the date of superannuation of the employee, for the reason that the retired employee may not be put into any detrimental condition, where after getting superannuated from service, he has not made to suffer, but the authority has sat idle and when this matter has been brought in their consideration, thereafter, efforts have been taken for tracing out the service book and hence, it cannot be said that the delay is not on the part of the State Authority.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the admitted amount although has been paid, but, without any interest @ 8 per cent, as directed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3767 of 2014, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for getting the interest @ 8 per cent from the due date till the date of realization.

In view thereof, the prima facie view of this Court is that the Opposite Party has wilfully and deliberately acted in defiance of the Court's order, at this juncture, Mr. B. B. Sinha, learned G.A. II appearing for the Opposite party-State has submitted that the matter may be posted after four weeks, so that the interest would be calculated and paid in favour of the petitioner, as directed by this Court.

Let this case appear on 29th July, 2019 for filing of the compliance report.