Patrick Tigga vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Pramath Patnaik, J

The instant Contempt Petition has been filed for non-compliance of order dated 07.09.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4802 of 2006.

Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shahid Khan, learned S.C. (Mines) for the Opp. Parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Vaccinator in Zila Parishad, Ranchi in the year 1960 and retired on 31.12.1992. After retirement, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent to provide retiral dues such as Gratuity, arrears of salary, benefit of Time Bond Promotions etc but no action was taken, for which, the petitioner preferred writ application being C.W.J.C No. 1500 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of with a direction to Deputy Development Commissioner to look into the matter, but for non- compliance of the said order the petitioner filed contempt application being M.J.C No. 62 of 1999 (R) which was also disposed of. But, again when no action was taken the petitioner filed another writ application being W.P. (S) No. 4802 of 2006 which is subject matter of instant writ application, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2006 with liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh representation, which was directed to be considered in accordance with law, but even after lapse of more than seven years the Opposite Parties have not paid the said retiral dues to the petitioner after lapse of more than two decades of retirement. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (C) No. 672 of 2013, which was dropped on the assurance of the respondents that rest amount shall be paid but the same has not been paid. Hence, the present contempt petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties besides raising point of limitation submitted that this is the third contempt petition which has been filed by the petitioner arising out of same impugned order. Cont. Case (Civil) No. 557 of 2011 and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 672 of 2013 have already been dropped. So far merit of the case is concerned, it has been submitted that from the L.P.C dated 28.02.1989, it appears that there is no due against the salary head. Referring to Annexure B series to supplementary show cause dated 21.08.2018, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties further submitted that the amount as mentioned in order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Cont. Case No. 672 of 2013 has already been paid to the petitioner vide cheque which has duly been acknowledged by the petitioner, hence he cannot deny to have received such amount. Referring to Annexure C to supplementary show cause affidavit, submitted that amount against arrears of Second Time Bound Promotion and interest thereon has also been paid.

Before adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, it would be apt to quote the relevant portion of order dated 07.09.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4802 of 2006:

"In the nature of the case without going into the merit, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh and detailed representation along with a copy of this order before the authority concerned, and if such representation is filed, the competent authority shall consider the same and shall pass reasoned order against each item of the claim made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If the petitioner's one or other claim is found genuine, the monetary benefit(s) found payable to the petitioner is/are not paid to the petitioner within the said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 8 % per annum on such amount in addition to the statutory interest payable on the delayed payment of such dues."

From the pleadings available on record, in particular show cause affidavit and supplementary show cause affidavit and its Annexure B series and Annexure C, it appears that amount in question has been paid to the petitioner thereby there is substantial compliance of order dated 07.09.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4802 of 2006.

For the discussions made herein above, as the order has substantially been complied with, the contempt proceeding is dropped.