Bal Kishore Mody Vs. Arun Kumar Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5815 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14030/99
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14030/99
Petitioner: Bal Kishore Mody
Respondent: Arun Kumar Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5815 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14030/99
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14030/99
Judges: M.B.SHAH & D.P.MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 10, 2000
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 – Contempt – Retired Government servant approaching High Court for delayed payment of retiral benefits – Despite High Court’s order, payment delayed – Contempt proceedings initiated – Court further directing for release of payment and in case of failure, to take action against Treasury Officer and Head Master – On appeal, concession made by Counsel for State and assurance given for taking action against erring official. Held that State Government would pay interest on delayed payment within one month and action shall be taken against erring officials.(Para 4)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 – Contempt – Retired Government servant approaching High Court for delayed payment of retiral benefits – Despite High Court’s order, payment delayed – Contempt proceedings initiated – Court further directing for release of payment and in case of failure, to take action against Treasury Officer and Head Master – On appeal, concession made by Counsel for State and assurance given for taking action against erring official. Held that State Government would pay interest on delayed payment within one month and action shall be taken against erring officials.(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 Leave granted.
2 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3 This appeal is filed against the judgement and order, dated 17.5.1999 passed by the High Court of Patna in contempt proceed-ings numbered as M.J.C. No.3493/1998. The grievance of the appell-ant is that despite the fact that the appellant retired on 31.12.1995 and submitted pension papers on 15.1.1996, the appell-ant was not paid his retiral benefits for years together and for that purpose, he was required to approach the High Court. Despite the High Court’s order some officers of the State Government delayed the payment of pensionary benefits. As there was breach of the order passed by the High Court, aforesaid contempt pro-ceedings were initiated and finally by the impugned order, the contempt proceedings were disposed of by the High Court by observing that the authorities shall release the full amount towards pen-sion, gratuity and leave encashment as sanctioned and payment order issued by the Accountant General within three days from the date of the appearance of the appellant before the concerned Treasury Officer. The Court has further observed that in case of non-compliance of the order, it would be open to the appellant to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Court to take appropriate action against the erring officer including the Treasury Officer and/or I/C Headmaster of the school. The Court has also kept the question open with regard to the grievance of the appellant for wrong calculation of the provident fund and interest thereon. It has been pointed out that in spite of the order of the High Court to make the payment within three days from 17.5.1999, the amount was released after a long time.
4. At the time of the hearing of the matter, considering the delay in making payment of retiral benefits, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders giving direction to pay inter-est on the said amount and the State Government would pay the same within one month from the date of the order. He further submitted that appropriate action would be taken against the concerned officer/s who delayed the payment of retiral benefits. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to take any further action in this contempt proceedings.
5. Hence, it is directed that the respondents shall pay interest on the retiral benefits from 15.1.1996 till the date of payment at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. With regard to G.P.F. payment, no further interest is required to be paid as the amount is already released with interest. The appeal is disposed of ac-cordingly and the High Court’s judgment shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent is directed to pay to the appellant, costs quantified at Rs.5000/-.
1 Leave granted.
2 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3 This appeal is filed against the judgement and order, dated 17.5.1999 passed by the High Court of Patna in contempt proceed-ings numbered as M.J.C. No.3493/1998. The grievance of the appell-ant is that despite the fact that the appellant retired on 31.12.1995 and submitted pension papers on 15.1.1996, the appell-ant was not paid his retiral benefits for years together and for that purpose, he was required to approach the High Court. Despite the High Court’s order some officers of the State Government delayed the payment of pensionary benefits. As there was breach of the order passed by the High Court, aforesaid contempt pro-ceedings were initiated and finally by the impugned order, the contempt proceedings were disposed of by the High Court by observing that the authorities shall release the full amount towards pen-sion, gratuity and leave encashment as sanctioned and payment order issued by the Accountant General within three days from the date of the appearance of the appellant before the concerned Treasury Officer. The Court has further observed that in case of non-compliance of the order, it would be open to the appellant to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Court to take appropriate action against the erring officer including the Treasury Officer and/or I/C Headmaster of the school. The Court has also kept the question open with regard to the grievance of the appellant for wrong calculation of the provident fund and interest thereon. It has been pointed out that in spite of the order of the High Court to make the payment within three days from 17.5.1999, the amount was released after a long time.
4. At the time of the hearing of the matter, considering the delay in making payment of retiral benefits, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders giving direction to pay inter-est on the said amount and the State Government would pay the same within one month from the date of the order. He further submitted that appropriate action would be taken against the concerned officer/s who delayed the payment of retiral benefits. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to take any further action in this contempt proceedings.
5. Hence, it is directed that the respondents shall pay interest on the retiral benefits from 15.1.1996 till the date of payment at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. With regard to G.P.F. payment, no further interest is required to be paid as the amount is already released with interest. The appeal is disposed of ac-cordingly and the High Court’s judgment shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent is directed to pay to the appellant, costs quantified at Rs.5000/-.
