IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont.(Civil)Case No. 254 of 2008
Padmalochan Kalindi ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ors. .... Opposite parties
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
......
For the petitioner : Mr.D.K.Dubey
For the State : Mr.Sumir Prasad
....
3 / 8.7.2009
. Although this Bench had passed an order on 20.5.2009
that the respondent-contemnor should explain as to why they should
not be punished for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the
order dated 11.10.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 542 of 2006, which had
been referred to the Full Bench and was finally decided on
11.10.2007, we have noticed after hearing the counsel for the parties
that the petitioner has essentially filed this contempt petition for
implementation of the order dated 23.8.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.
2814 of 2006, which finally had been referred to the Full Bench for
consideration of a question as to whether the order of recovery of
amount after the retirement of an employee after long number of
years, is permissible or not.
The matter has finally been decided by the Full Bench
earlier and, therefore, no further question remains to be considered
by this Full Bench. However, there appears to be a direction by the
Full Bench in its judgment and order to pay the arrears of pension
and gratuity to the petitioner alongwith interest as directed by the
2
learned Single Bench also within a period of two months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of the said Full
Bench, if not already paid. A further direction was issued by the said
Full Bench that the respondents shall also refund the amount which
was deducted earlier and the same was ordered to be adjusted
against the alleged dues within the said period. It was further
observed that if the arrears/amounts aforesaid are not paid within
the said period , he shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of
10% per annum on the amount of arrears from the date of his
retirement till final payment.
In view of this categorical direction, a petition for
contempt was filed by the petitioner, which was heard by this Full
Bench on 20.5.2009 and the respondents were directed to report
compliance of the order.
It is now informed by the respondents that the order
already stands complied since the entire payment has been made.
In view of this information, no case of contempt is made
out but the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
passed by the learned Single Bench has not been complied in its
entirety.
But even if it is so, a petition for contempt is not required
to be heard by the Full Bench since the Full Bench would be obliged
to hear the contempt petition only to the extent by which direction
had been issued by the judgment and order of the Full Bench, which
already stands complied.
If the petitioner is still aggrieved and has reason to
contend that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not
been entirely complied, he would be at liberty to file a fresh
contempt petition before the Single Bench. In so far as this
contempt petition is concerned, it is not required to be adjudicated
3
further by the Full Bench inasmuch as the counsel for the petitioner
is missing that a contempt petition for implementation of the order
passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be expected to be
adjudicated and implemented by the Full Bench.
The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.
( Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.)
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J )
( D. K. Sinha, J. )
G.Jha/