Samarendra Kumar Mukherjee v. K. M. Lal — 1991 DIGILAW 485 (CAL)

JUDGMENT This is an application for contempt of Court in respect of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1982, passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray (as His Lordship then was) in Civil Order No. 15554(W) of 1981. 2. The application was initially heard by His Lordship, but His Lordship was pleased to release the same and, thereafter, after having been assigned to other Benches, the matter has been assigned to this Court for hearing. 3. It appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Inspector of Cooperative Societies under the respondents herein. The petitioner had been placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction and a Rule was issued thereon. Ultimately, in terms of the directions passed by this Court, the disciplinary proceeding was withdrawn and the order of suspension was revoked. The consequences of withdrawal of the disciplinary proceedings and the revocation of the suspension order was that the petitioner continued to be in active service all along. It appears that in view of the order of suspension and because of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was denied the benefits of seniority, promotion, normal increments and all consequential benefits and even till 2nd August, 1982, the petitioner was drawing a Basic Salary of Rs. 510/- although, he was entitled to a much higher Basic Salary and was also entitled to normal increments and other benefits, including promotion on the basis of his position in the Seniority List. It appears that the petitioner made various representations to the concerned authorities in respect of his aforesaid grievances, but the same were not considered by the said authorities. It also appears that the petitioner was also denied payment of his arrear dues on the ground that the petitioner had been issued with a Token Number and the same should be returned by him, as in the absence of such Token Number, the payment of salaries and other increments could not be made. It appears that the petitioner duly informed the respondents that such Token Number was not available with him and, in any event, the Token Number and other particulars of the Pay Sheet of the petitioner and the salaries drawn by him could be ascertained from the office records. 4. It appears that the petitioner duly informed the respondents that such Token Number was not available with him and, in any event, the Token Number and other particulars of the Pay Sheet of the petitioner and the salaries drawn by him could be ascertained from the office records. 4. In view of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner was compelled to move a fresh writ application, being Civil Order No. 15554(W) of 1981, and the same came up for final hearing on 2nd August, 1982, before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray (as His Lordship then was). 5. After considering the submissions of the parties, His Lordship held that the salaries and increments drawn by the petitioner could easily be ascertained with reference to the records of the respondents and it was unfortunate that on account of the Token Number the petitioner’s pay had not been properly fixed and the petitioner had not been given increments, promotion and other benefits which the petitioner was entitled to according to his position in the Seniority List. While disposing of the writ application, His Lordship therefore, directed as follows :- “In the circumstances, it is directed that within a month from today the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 should fix proper pay of the petitioner including all increments and intermediate selection grade, consequential regularisation of salaries etc, which is due to the petitioner on the basis of his position on the gradation list of 1974 and should also give promotion to the petitioner if the same is due to the petitioner on the basis of his position in the seniority list. So far as the arrear salaries special pay and all other allowances including normal increments and other increments etc. which may be due to the petitioner are concerned, such arrear salaries together with increments etc. should also be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. The respondents Nos., 6 to 7 are directed to supply the token number and other particulars of the petitioner as required by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. which may be due to the petitioner are concerned, such arrear salaries together with increments etc. should also be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. The respondents Nos., 6 to 7 are directed to supply the token number and other particulars of the petitioner as required by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioner will made a representation before the Accountant General, West Bengal asking for Token Number after giving necessary particulars in detail within three weeks from today and the Accountant General, West Bengal is directed to supply the Token Number to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of such representation of the petitioner. The petitioner will thereafter be entitled to forward the said intimation received by the petitioner from the Accountant General's office to the State respondents for the purpose of payment of arrear salaries and emoluments within the period specified hereinbefore.” 6. The instant contempt application arises out of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray (as his Lordship then was) on 2nd August, 1982, in the aforesaid Civil Order No. 15554 (W) of 1981. 7. According co the petitioner, after obtaining plain copies of the aforesaid judgment and order, he sent copies of the same to the respondents herein and the same were received by the said respondents on 7th August, 1982. Pursuant to the directions contained in the said judgment, the petitioner made an application to the Accountant General, West Bengal, on 11th August, 1982, praying for the Token Number in question and the same was transmitted to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 24-Parganas (North), who has been made respondent no. 3 in this application, by the Accountant General, West Bengal. 8. It will be apparent from the said order dated 2nd August, 1982, that three distinct directions were given to the respondents nos. 1 to 5 in the writ application with regard to the petitioner's grievances. By the first direction, the said respondents were directed to fix the proper pay of the petitioner as due to him according to the gradation list of 1974. By the second direction, the respondents were directed to give promotion to the petitioner, if the same wall due to him, on the basis of his position in the seniority list. By the first direction, the said respondents were directed to fix the proper pay of the petitioner as due to him according to the gradation list of 1974. By the second direction, the respondents were directed to give promotion to the petitioner, if the same wall due to him, on the basis of his position in the seniority list. By the last direction, the said respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner, within a period of four months, all his arrear salaries, special pay and allowances, including normal increments and other increments. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was directed to make a representation before toe Accountant General, West Bengal, for the Token Number and the Accountant General, West Bengal, was directed to supply the said Token Number to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The petitioner, would, thereafter, be entitled to forward the said intimation received by him from the Accountant General's office to the State respondents for the purpose of payment of arrear salaries and emoluments within the period specified in the order. 9. As mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner duly applied to the Accountant General, West Bengal, for the Token Number and the same was supplied to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 24-Parganas (North). 10. In spite of having received the order dated 2nd August, 1982, on 7th August, 1982, it is the petitioner's complaint that the directions contained therein were not fully complied with by the respondents within the period specified in the order. It appears that four orders were passed on 27th August, 1982, 31st August, 1982 and 13th September, 1982, with regard to periodical increments and for grant of intermediate selection grade, whereby the petitioner's pay was raised from Rs. 795/- to Rs. 820/-. No order was, however, passed as regards the arrear salaries, special pay and other allowances, which wore required to be paid within a period of four months from the date of the order. According to the petitioner, he made a representation to the respondents herein on 22nd September, 1982, stating that steps had not been taken in terms of the aforesaid order dated 2nd August, 1982, except in respect of periodical increments and grant of intermediate selection grade. According to the petitioner, he made a representation to the respondents herein on 22nd September, 1982, stating that steps had not been taken in terms of the aforesaid order dated 2nd August, 1982, except in respect of periodical increments and grant of intermediate selection grade. On 19th October, 1982, the petitioner made another representation to the respondents to give effect to the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1982, but nothing tangible resulted. Ultimately, on 22nd November, 1982, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents herein requesting them to implement the said order, as otherwise he would be compelled to move an application for contempt. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the said notice dated 22nd November, 1982, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Cooperation, wrote to the petitioner’s learned Advocate on 10th December, 1982, informing him that the matter was under process. Since, even after the aforesaid communicating, nothing further was heard by the petitioner for about a month, the petitioner was compelled to sent yet another legal notice to the respondents herein on 15th January, 1983. It may be mentioned that not only had the period of one month which had been mentioned in the order dated 2nd August, 1982, for fixation of proper pay and grant of promotion, expired on 2nd September, 1982, but even the period of four months for payment of the arrear dues, expired on 2nd December, 1982, and yet none of the directions given in the order had been complied with by the respondents herein, except for the orders passed with regard to periodical increment and grant of intermediate selection grade, within such stipulated time. It has been stared in the contempt application that the petitioner did not receive any reply to the said notice of 15th January, 1983, the petitioner sent a third legal notice to the respondents herein on 1st March, 1983. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any reply to the said notice either. 11. It has been stared in the contempt application that the petitioner did not receive any reply to the said notice of 15th January, 1983, the petitioner sent a third legal notice to the respondents herein on 1st March, 1983. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any reply to the said notice either. 11. It is the petitioner's case that since the respondents herein appeared to be completely oblivious to the directions contained in the order of 2nd August, 1982, and/or were disinclined to implement the same, in spite of the repeated representations made by the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file this application for contempt of Court on 11th May, 1983, that is, about 10 months after the aforesaid order had been made. 12. The petitioner's complaint in the contempt application is that neither was the petitioner given promotion, as directed, nor was he paid his arrear dues. Even the salary of the petitioner had not been properly fixed. According to the petitioner, while his position in the seniority list was at Serial No. 72 persons whoso position were below that of the petitioner, were given promotion, while the petitioner continued to discharge his duties in the subordinate service. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the contempt application, the petitioner has given details of the persons given promotion, despite being below the petitioner in the seniority list. 13. On 20th May, 1983, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray (as His Lordship then was), issued the instant Rule for contempt upon the respondents herein. 14. At the time of hearing of the Contempt Rule, the petitioner appeared in person and submitted that except for passing orders regarding normal increments and grant of intermediate selection grade, no other steps had been taken by the respondents herein to implement the several directions contained in the order of 2nd August, 1982, at the time when the Contempt Rule had been issued. 15. Appearing for the contemnors opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Jyotirish Chakraborty, learned Advocate, submitted that the contemnors opposite parties had no intention of not giving effect to the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1983, but they were prevented by certain circumstances from giving effect to the same within the stipulated period. 15. Appearing for the contemnors opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Jyotirish Chakraborty, learned Advocate, submitted that the contemnors opposite parties had no intention of not giving effect to the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1983, but they were prevented by certain circumstances from giving effect to the same within the stipulated period. An affidavit has been affirmed by Sri Arka Prabha Deb, who was the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, West Bengal, at the relevant time, in which the circumstances which prevented the respondents from implementing the order within the stipulated, has been sought to be explained. 16. The defence taken in the said affidavit is that as far as fixation of proper pay of the petitioner, including all increments and intermediate selection grade, consequential regularisation of salary etc., was concerned, steps were taken almost immediately after the passing of the order for compliance with the said direction. It has been stated that the petitioner was allowed the intermediate selection grade post of Inspector of Cooperative Societies with effect from 39th April, 1974, vide notification No. 17697 dated 27th August, 1982. As far as the direction relating to promotion was concerned, it has been stated in the affidavit that a proposal was initialed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, West Bengal on 31st August, 1982, for grant of promotion to the petitioner in the light of the order dated 2nd August, 1982. On 21st December, 1982, the Cooperative Department moved the Public Service Commission to consider the petitioner's case, along with several others, for promotion to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service. The Public Service Commission examined the case of the petitioner along with the others and informed the contemnors opposite parties by its letter dated 22nd April, 1983, that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for want of confidential reports for the period from 1974-75 to, 1976-77. The Public Service Commission recommended the names of 68 officers for promotion and decided to keep a berth reserved for the petitioner. On 15th June, 1983, the Cooperation Department requested the Public Service Commission to take up the petitioner’s case immediately so that the order of 2nd August, 1982, could be complied with. The Public Service Commission recommended the names of 68 officers for promotion and decided to keep a berth reserved for the petitioner. On 15th June, 1983, the Cooperation Department requested the Public Service Commission to take up the petitioner’s case immediately so that the order of 2nd August, 1982, could be complied with. The Cooperation Department by its letter dated 18th June, 1983, informed the Public Service Commission that the petitioner had been placed under suspension from 30th March, 1973 to 28th July, 1980, when he was subsequently reinstated with full pay, increments, etc. and his period of suspension had been treated as period spent on duty. The Public Service Commission was also informed that in view of the above, the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports had not been prepared and requested the said Commission to consider the petitioner's case and give its recommendation immediately. Thereafter, it appears that the Public Service Commission recommended that the petitioner be appointed in the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service and fixed his position in order of preference above all the general candidates recommended in the Commission’s letter dated 22nd April, 1983. 17. It has been stated in the affidavit that after receiving the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the Department of Cooperation ordered that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Cooperative Development Officer vide notification no. 3635 dated 18th August, 1983. 18. It has been sought to be explained in the affidavit that it is the Public Service Commission which recommends the promotions of officers to the post of Cooperative Development Officer in the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service and such posts are filled up by the State Government only after receiving the recommendation of the said Commission. It has also been stated that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution. It is obligatory on the part of the State respondents to refer such cases of promotion to the Public Service Commission which also fixes up the inter-se-seniority of the officers thus recommended for promotion. Accordingly, the petitioner’s seniority being so determined by the Public Service Commission, there was no scope for placing the petitioner above the 289 officers who had been recommended earlier by the Public Service Commission during the years 1976 to 1981, anti who had been promoted long before the petitioner and were serving continuously in the post of Cooperative Development Officer from earlier dates. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that a group of officers had challenged the inter se-seniority of the officers of the rank of Cooperative Development Officer in Civil Rule No. 1683 (W) of 1978 and also in Civil Rule No. 10867 (W) of 1981, wherein an interim order of injunction had been issued by this Court restraining the State Government from confirming any Co-operative Development Officer who had been given such appointment after 15th January, 1976. It has been stated that the said interim Order is still in force and the said Civil Rules are still pending final disposal in this Court. It has also been stated that none of the officers who had been promoted to the rank of Cooperative Development Officer after 15th January, 1976, had either been confirmed or promoted to the rank of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies which is the next promotional post for a Cooperative Development Officer. A submission has been made in the said affidavit to the effect that this Court by its order dated 2nd August, 1982, had directed the contemnors opposite parties to give promotion to the petitioner, if the same was due to the petitioner on the basis of his position in the seniority list. It has been submitted that the learned Judge made it a condition precedent that promotion was to be given, only if such promotion was due. It has been submitted that the learned Judge did not hold or declare that promotion was due to the petitioner, and that the word “if” denotes a condition precedent. It has been submitted that the learned Judge did not order that in the matter of considering the petitioner's case for promotion, the statutory requirements were to be given a go-by and the name of the petitioner need not be sent to the Public Service Commission for the purpose of giving him promotion. 19. It, therefore, appears from the affidavit of Sri Arka Prabha Deb that during the pendency of the Rule, the petitioner's case for promotion was taken up for consideration and on 18th August, 1983, the Department of, Cooperation promoted the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Development Officer. 19. It, therefore, appears from the affidavit of Sri Arka Prabha Deb that during the pendency of the Rule, the petitioner's case for promotion was taken up for consideration and on 18th August, 1983, the Department of, Cooperation promoted the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Development Officer. However, there is nothing in the affidavit to indicate that the first direction relating to fixation of proper pay, had been fully complied with by the contemnors opposite parties, or that the third direction relating to payment of arrear dues had also been complied with. There is no explanation in the said affidavit relating to non-compliance of the said two directions. 20. On the other band, when this application came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N, Ray (as his Lordship then was) on 16th September, 1987, it was submitted by the petitioner that his medical leave and commuted leave on personal grounds had not been regularised and his pay had not been paid for the period after adjustment. On the said date, the contemnors were directed to consider the said contention of the petitioner and to release the salaries, if payable to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within five weeks from the said date. The petitioner was also granted leave to inspect his service records for the purpose of ascertaining as to which portion of leave had been utilized by him and what further leave was still due to him. On 17th, December, 1987, when the matter once again came up for consideration before has Lordship, it was submitted by the petitioner that despite the orders passed by this Court in the writ proceedings, the contemnors opposite parties had not allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties and functions in the promotional post. It was also submitted that the contemnors opposite parties had not granted leave to the petitioner to which he was entitled, thereby seriously prejudicing the petitioner. Of course, it was contended on behalf of the contemnors opposite parties that under the rules the petitioner was required to file medical certificates, which he had failed to do. In view of such submissions, His Lordship directed the petitioner to file appropriate medical certificates in support of his continuation of leave for the period from 4th March, 1986 to 3rd July, 1986. In view of such submissions, His Lordship directed the petitioner to file appropriate medical certificates in support of his continuation of leave for the period from 4th March, 1986 to 3rd July, 1986. The petitioner was also directed to file necessary medical certificates in support of the commuted leave asked for by him for the period from 4th August, 1986 to 3rd August, 1987. It was submitted on behalf of the contemnors opposite parties that once the medical certificates were filed by the petitioner, the office would take immediate steps to regularise she same, As far as the leave salary for the period already sanctioned, it was submitted that the bills would be sent to the Pay and Accounts office within two days from 17th December, 1987. 21. With regard to other dispute regarding the requirement of some formalities for joining the post of Cooperative Development Officer, it was contended by the petitioner, so that he had already joined the said post sometime in 1983. It was, however, contended by the Cooperation Department that such joining was not in conformity with the rules and practice being followed and a formal joining report was necessary. Again, to a void further complication, the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, was directed to comply with the formalities, as asked for by the Department, by giving a formal charge report. The learned Judge was also informed that if the petitioner wanted to join the office by the first week of January, 1988, there would be no difficulty for him to join and all possible assistance would be rendered to him to perform the duties and functions as a Liquidator under the Cooperative Societies Act. On behalf of the contemnors opposite parties it was submitted that the department would specify the names of the firms in respect of which the petitioner was to discharge his duties and functions as Liquidator, so that the petitioner did not face any difficulty in discharging his functions. 22. On behalf of the contemnors opposite parties it was submitted that the department would specify the names of the firms in respect of which the petitioner was to discharge his duties and functions as Liquidator, so that the petitioner did not face any difficulty in discharging his functions. 22. Thereafter, the matter appeared for hearing on various dates and on 17th February, 1988, the application for contempt was taken up for further hearing when it was submitted on behalf of the contemners opposite parties, that, although, medical certificates for some period and prescriptions for the remaining period, had been submitted by the petitioner for regularising his leave, medical certificates covering the entire period had not been submitted and that such medical certificates were necessary for the purpose of regularisation of leave. The petitioner was thereupon directed to submit medical certificates covering the entire period from 5th July, 1986 to 3rd October, 1987, within a period of 10 days, so that his pending applications for leave could be regularised without any further delay. 23. During the hearing on 17th February, 1988, it also transpired that there was a dispute as to whether the petitioner had properly assumed charge on 15th September, 1983, in the promoted post of Cooperative Development Officer. According to the respondents, before joining the promotional post, it was necessary on the part of the petitioner to hand over charge of the post of Inspector and to also assume charge as a Cooperative Development Officer. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not initially hand over and take over charge as directed by the Department. Later on, he had handed over charge to Mr. S. Guha, Inspector of Cooperative Societies, but he had not taken formal charge from. Mr. N.C. Pal, the other Development Officer. According to the petitioner, however, since be had been given promotion in terms of the direction of this Court and since initially there was no direction to hand over charge to any particular officer, he had assumed charge of the promoted post in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, according to the proforma issued by the office and such acceptance of charge by him must be accepted as valid assumption of charge. It was also submitted by the petitioner that when the order of promotion was made, no direction was given to him to join a particular post after taking charge from another officer. As such, according to the petitioner, there was no necessity of taking charge from any particular officer. 24. As far as the said dispute was concerned, the learned Judge directed that suitable directions could be given at the time of disposal of the contempt application itself. 25. Now, at the final hearing of the contempt application, is remains to be seen as to whether all the direction contained in the order of 2nd August, 1982, have been fully complied with by the contemners opposite parties, even if at a belated stage. 26. At the time when the contempt application was moved only one of the three directions contained in the order had been complied with by the contemners opposite parties, and that too, only partially. During the course of the hearing of the contempt rule, however, the other direction relating to grant of promotion was also complied with, but as submitted by the petitioner, even such promotion had not been given in the manner indicated in the order of 2nd August, 1982. As far as the third direction is concerned, the same is to some extent related to the first direction and no specific argument has been advanced fit the time of final hearing of the rule relating to non-compliance of the same. 27. As far as the directions relating to proper fixation of pay of the petitioner and payment of his arrear salaries, special pay and all other allowances, including normal increments and other increments, arc concerned, the same appear to have been more or less complied with except that such payments may be related to the dispute relating to whether the petitioner had properly assumed charge in the promoted post on 15th September, 1983. 28. As far as the said dispute is concerned, I am inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner in this connection. Although, an order had been passed granting promotion to the petitioner, no direction appears to have been given in the said order or otherwise to join a particular post after faking charge from a particular officer. As such, the question of the petitioner's taking charge from any particular officer does not arise. Although, an order had been passed granting promotion to the petitioner, no direction appears to have been given in the said order or otherwise to join a particular post after faking charge from a particular officer. As such, the question of the petitioner's taking charge from any particular officer does not arise. The petitioner had handed over charge, as he was required to do, but in the absence of any specific direction, there could be no occasion for the petitioner to take formal charge from any officer and he could have no alternative but to assume charge in his promoted post, which be apparently did. Accordingly, it must be held that the petitioner's assumption of charge in the promoted post of Cooperative Development officer on 15th September, 1983, is valid, and the petitioner muse be entitled to all the benefits all a result thereof. Such benefits, including monetary benefits, if any, must be given to the petitioner within four weeks from date. 29. As far as promotion of the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Development Officer is concerned, I am afraid that, although, the petitioner was given promotion pursuant to the order of this Court, such promotion was not in conformity with the directions contained in the said order of 2nd Auguse,1982. By the said order, this Court directed that the petitioner was to be given promotion, if the same was due on the basis of his position in the seniority list. Unfortunately, that has not been done, although, an attempt has been made by the contemners opposite parties to justify the grant of promotion to the petitioner in a manner so as to place him below several officers, who had been junior to the petitioner in the gradation list of 1974. As has been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed by Sri Arka Prabha Deb, the petitioner's name was placed after 289 officers who had been, recommended for promotion by the Public Service Commission during the years 1976 to 1981. The contemners opposite parties have tried to make out a case that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution seniority is determined by the Public Service Commission and there was, therefore, no scope for the respondents to place the petitioner above the said 289 officers. 30. The contemners opposite parties have tried to make out a case that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution seniority is determined by the Public Service Commission and there was, therefore, no scope for the respondents to place the petitioner above the said 289 officers. 30. I am afraid that no such argument was advanced by the respondents when the writ application was heard and disposed of on 2nd August, 1982, and such an averment is contrary to the directions given by this Court and cannot, therefore, be accepted. In any event, the provisions of Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution does not, in my view, stand in the way of implementation of the order passed on 2nd August, 1982, in the manner intended. 31. Apart from the above, the manner in which the direction relating to grant of promotion to the petitioner was sought to be implemented by the contemners opposite parties, leaves a lot of room for doubt as to whether, the contemners opposite parties sincerely intended to implement the said direction in the spirit in which it was given. It cannot also be forgotten that, although, the directions were given on 2nd August, 1982, and the time period for implementing the same expired on 2nd December, 1982, the petitioner's case for promotion was forwarded by the Department to the Public Service Commission only on 21st December, 1982, and the order of promotion was in fact made on 16th August, 1982, that is, more than six months after the stipulated period had expired. It cannot also be denied that the delay was caused by the contemners opposite parties themselves. Even if the procedure involving the recommendation of the Public Service Commission is to be taken into account, even then there is no explanation as to why the contemners opposite parties waited till after the stipulated period to forward the name of the petitioner along with the names of other officers. There is no explanation as to why the Public Service Commission was not informed of the fact that the petitioner had been suspended, but that such suspension order had subsequently been revoked and the petitioner had been allowed to resume his duties, treating the petitioner to be in active service during the entire period of suspension, and that for the period during which the order of suspension was effective, no Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner had been prepared. Of course, the petitioner has been shown to have been placed at the top of the other officers, whose names have been recommended for promotion along with the petitioner, but the fact remains that, although, according to the gradation list of 1974 the petitioner's position was at Serial No. 72, he was placed after 289 officers who had been recommended for promotion between 1976 to 1981. It has been stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition that this Court made it a condition precedent that promotion was to be given to the petitioner "if" the same was due to him. According to the contemners opposite parties, the word "if" wall deliberately used by this Court instead of giving a specific direction that the petitioner "shall" be given promotion. It has also been stated in the said paragraph that G.N. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was) did not direct that in the matter of considering the petitioner for promotion, the statutory requirements were to be given a go by and that the name of the petitioner need not be sent to the Public Service Commission for recommendation. 32. Although the Public Service Commission was not involved in the contempt proceedings, it was permitted to file a written statement in the matter, In the said statement it seeks to explain as to why and how the petitioner's promotion, which was due to him in terms of his position in the seniority list, was delayed. It has been sought to be explained that when the petitioner's name was forwarded to the Commission for the first time in April, 1972, for promotion, to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service, be failed to achieve the minimum merit rating and was, not, therefore, found fir for promotion. Thereafter, his case was again considered by the Commission in 1976 and there were 409 eligible officers and 166 vacancies. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 19. However, as the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report for 1974-75 was not available, as he had been placed under suspension in the meantime, his case could not be recommended for promotion. The petitioner's case for promotion was next considered by the Commission on 17th July, 1981, along with 188 eligible officers against 80 vacancies. However, as the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report for 1974-75 was not available, as he had been placed under suspension in the meantime, his case could not be recommended for promotion. The petitioner's case for promotion was next considered by the Commission on 17th July, 1981, along with 188 eligible officers against 80 vacancies. Once again, the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1975-76 to 1979-80, as far as the petitioner was concerned, were not made available by the Department to the Commission and, accordingly, the petitioner could not again be considered for promotion. As has been stated on behalf of the Commission, the other suitable officers were duly recommended for promotion by the Commission on 3rd August, 1981. On 21st December, 1982, the petitioner's case was again sent to the Commission by the Cooperation Department and the matter was taken up by the Commission for finalization on 11th April, 1983 and 8th July, 1983, on the basis of the Annual Confidential Reports for five years from 1977-78 to 1981-82. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned, his Annual Confidential Reports for three years prior to 1980-81 were not made available to the Commission by the Cooperation Department and only on 18th June, 1983, the Cooperation Department informed the Public Service Commission that the petitioner had been placed under suspension from 30th March, 1973 to 28th July, 1980, when his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated with full pay increments, etc and the period of suspension had been treated as period spent on duty. It was only after the said information had been received by the Public Service Commission, along with the contents of the order dated 2nd August, 1982, that the Commission decided to consider the petitioner's case for promotion taking into account his available Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, along with his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1982-83, as a special case. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was recommended for promotion on 3rd August, 1983, and he was placed above all the 68 general candidates who had been recommended for promotion to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service on the basis of the selection made by the Commission on 11th April, 1983. 33. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was recommended for promotion on 3rd August, 1983, and he was placed above all the 68 general candidates who had been recommended for promotion to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service on the basis of the selection made by the Commission on 11th April, 1983. 33. From the said statement filed on behalf of the Public Service Commission one thing is apparent, and, that is, the fact that the petitioner's case for promotion had been considered at periodical stages, but, except for the first occasion, when his merit rating was not up to the minimum mark, on all the other different occasions the petitioner's case could not be considered as his Annual Confidential Reports for the period during which he was under suspension were not made available to the Public Service Commission. It cannot, therefore, be denied that as per his position in the seniority list, the petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion, but his case could not considered by the Public Service Commission, in the absence of his Annual Confidential Reports, despite the fact that his name was forwarded by the Department for grant of such promotion. 34. The order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 29th March, 1973, was revoked by an order dated 17th July, 1980, but even then the petitioner's case for promotion could not be considered in 1981, because his Annual Confidential Reports had not been sent to the Commission by the Cooperation Department. It was only after this Court passed specific directions in Civil Order No. 15554(W) of 1981 on 2nd August, 1982, that the petitioner’s case for promotion was taken up for consideration. Even then the Department failed to inform the Public Service Commission that the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports for the years during which he was under suspension, had not been initiated. This information was sent to the Commission by the Cooperation Department after the Contempt Rule had been issued and at a very belated stage, namely, on 18th June, 1983, whereupon the Commission proceeded to examine the petitioner's case without such Annual Confidential Reports. 35. It is, therefore, obvious that promotion was repeatedly denied to the petitioner, although, he was eligible for the same, because of the deliberate laches on the part of the Cooperation Department. 35. It is, therefore, obvious that promotion was repeatedly denied to the petitioner, although, he was eligible for the same, because of the deliberate laches on the part of the Cooperation Department. As mentioned earlier, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioner's name was sent by the Cooperation Department to the Public Service Commission only on 21st December, 1982, after the period stipulated in the order of 2nd August, 1982, had already expired on 2nd December, 1982. Even then, the Public Service Commission was not in a position to take any decision as it had not been informed that the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the period during which he was under suspension had not been prepared. There can be no doubt that the contemners opposite parties did not take proper care to obey the orders of this Court and by their callous attitude they allowed the time period specified in the order. So expire, despite the repeated representations made by the petitioner. It is indeed a very sad state of affairs, as far as the Cooperation Department is concerned, and the conduct of the contemners opposite parties leads this Court to suspect that the concerned officers were disinclined or reluctant to implement the direction of this Court. Such conduct was not expected from the high officials of the Cooperation Department who are the contemners opposite parties in the present Rule. The placing of the petitioner at the top of the list of those officers recommended for promotion on the basis of the selection made by the Commission on 11th April, 1983, cannot, in my opinion, be said to be in compliance with the order passed on 2nd August, 1982, as the direction given by this Court was that the petitioner’s case for promotion was to be considered on the basis of his position in the gradation list of 1974. 36. 36. One can appreciate the fact that when the petitioner's name was first recommended for promotion in 1972 he did not achieve the minimum merit rating but the fact that the petitioner’s case could not be considered subsequently, was not due to any fault on his part and such fact was duly recognized by this Court in the order dated 2nd August, 1982, whereby the respondents in the writ petition were directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion on the basil of his position in the gradation list of 1974. Of course, the words "if due", have been mentioned in the said order, but, as has been observed earlier, the petitioner was eligible for promotion as far back as in 1972, and his name was also forwarded to the Public Service Commission which could not consider his case in 1976 and, thereafter, in the absence of his Annual Confidential Reports for the relevant years. 37. In my view, what this Court intended in its order of 2nd August, 1982, was that the petitioner's case for promotion was to be considered on the basis of his position in the gradation list of 1974 and not on the basis of the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission on 3rd August, 1983, subsequent to the passing of the said order. 38. Accordingly, it was incumbent on the part of the contemners opposite parties, and even the Public Service Commission, to ensure that the petitioner's seniority was computed in terms of his position in the gradation list of 1974, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner's case for promotion was being recommended long after other officers, who were junior to him in the said gradation list, had been given promotion. In my view, the petitioner, on being given promotion, should have been placed above those persons who were junior to him in the gradation list, as in the month of January 1976, when the petitioner's case for promotion to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service was forwarded to the Public Service Commission along with 471 other candidates. 39. In my view, the petitioner, on being given promotion, should have been placed above those persons who were junior to him in the gradation list, as in the month of January 1976, when the petitioner's case for promotion to the West Bengal Junior Cooperative Service was forwarded to the Public Service Commission along with 471 other candidates. 39. In view of the fact that an attempt was made, though belated and half-hearted, to comply with the directions contained in the order of 2nd August, 1982, I am not taking any step at this stage to penalise the contemners opposite parties, although, there is no room for doubt that the said directions had not been complied with and/or implemented in the manner intended by this Court. I however, direct that the petitioner be placed above those candidates who were junior to the petitioner, as per the gradation list of 1974, in January, 1976, subject to the decision in the two writ applications mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed by Sri Arka Prabha Deb on 24th January, 1991. The aforesaid direction must be given effect to within a period of four weeks from date, along with the earlier direction whereby the contemners opposite parties have been directed to make available to the petitioner such benefits, including monetary benefit, consequent upon this Court's finding that the petitioner's assumption of charge in the promoted post of Cooperative Development Officer on 15th September, 1983, was valid. 40 The contemners opposite parties, except for the contemner opposite party No. 4, who has since retired, are directed to pay to the petitioner the costs of this application assessed at 100 Gold Mohars, within the aforesaid period of four weeks from date. Let this matter appear for further orders after a period of six weeks. Let xerox copies of this order be given to the petitioner and the learned Counsels for the parties on usual undertaking.