Uday Shankar Singh vs Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. and Others

Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.—This is a petition for contempt alleging non-compliance of the order dated 21.6.2002, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dispose of the writ petition bearing W.P.(S). No. 2232 of 2002 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation in regard to the payment of his retiral dues, and direction was also issued to the respondents to pay the retiral dues if the same were payable. It has further ordered that if nothing is found due, then the said respondents shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

The circumstance which gave rise to the filing of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner even after his superannuation had overstayed in the accommodation owned by the respondents as a result of which, his retiral dues had been withheld. This prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the denial of his retiral dues and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents-conteninor to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner on condition that he would vacate the premises which is in his occupation even after his retirement. Thereafter, it was ordered that the retiral dues be paid to the petitioner and if nothing is found due, a reasoned order be passed in that regard.

The petitioner''s case is that he has already handed over the possession of the house to the respondents which even otherwise he was bound to do, and although retiral dues have been paid, some amount towards penal rent has been deducted horn his retiral dues and an order in this regard also has been passed while deciding the representation of the petitioner on 26.9.2002.

The petitioner''s grievance in this contempt petition is that the order by which his representation has been decided, do not indicate as to why penal rent has been charged and the amount on that count has been arbitrarily deducted. This, although, may be a cause of action for the petitioner to take recourse to the filing of an independent writ petition challenging the order passed on his representation, it cannot be treated as a legal ground to initiate contempt proceeding. In so far as the contempt petition is concerned, that has clearly a limited scope and once the retiral dues of the petitioner which was payable to him has been paid after deducting the penal rent, the grievance in regard to the deduction of any amount by way of penal rent cannot be allowed to be raised by way of a petition for contempt.

Under the circumstance, no case for contempt is made out. Hence, the petition is dismissed.