AJIT KUMAR BANDAPADHYAY v. JAYSHREE CHOWDHURY — 1995 DIGILAW 229 (CAL)

SATYA BRATA SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application for contempt arises out of an order dated 26-9-89, operative portion whereof reads thus -"heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent (?) it is submitted on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the respondent wanted to pay salary but the petitioner did not take the salary. However, the respondents have no objection provided the salary is given in the scale of Store-keeper. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent further submits that since the petitioner did not accept the salary which was payable to me, the respondent have deposited the same in a Bank account and the respondent have no objection if the said amount is withdrawn from the Bank. Considering the facts the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the petitioner in the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner was S-2 Supervisor. He is a science graduate and also holds a post-graduate diploma. As he was not promoted to the next higher post which was filled up by direct recruitment, a suit was filed which was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment. It was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. After remand the suit was dismissed. The petitioner allegedly did not accept the salary from September, 197 9/08/1986 as according to him, he was being paid lower salary. He filed a writ application for payment of the salary and by an order dt. 26-9-89, S. K. Hajari, J. directed that the said amount be paid. The learned Judge as would appear from the order directed that as in the meanwhile the salary of the petitioner was being deposited in the bank account, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent in the bank along with interest accrued thereon. On 11-11-89 the petitioner admittedly has been paid a sum of Rs. 92,974. 23 paisa by way of salary from February, 1980 to August, 1986. It appears that the respondent filed an application for modification and by an order dated 2-2-1990, A. K. Nayak, J. passed the following order :-"learned Advocates of both sides are present. The opposite parties Nos. On 11-11-89 the petitioner admittedly has been paid a sum of Rs. 92,974. 23 paisa by way of salary from February, 1980 to August, 1986. It appears that the respondent filed an application for modification and by an order dated 2-2-1990, A. K. Nayak, J. passed the following order :-"learned Advocates of both sides are present. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed this application seeking modification and if necessary deletion of the words "along with the interest" in the impugned order dated 26-9-89. The application is taken up for consideration. Heard both sides, on a perusal of the relevant order and also the petition, I find that the respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay to the petitioner in the Rule the salaries and allowances including arrears outstanding and due to the petitioner in the main Rule since. , 1-9-79 along with interest accrued thereon. Undisputedly, all the admitted salary of the petitioner in the Rule, was deposited by the respondents/opposite parties in the Bank as per the previous order of Court. By the impugned order the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent/opposite parties in the Bank along with interest accrued thereon. It is now submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents/opposite parties that no interest has virtually accrued on the sum deposited, as because the said sum is lying in deposit in the current account. As such, the petitioner in the main Rule is not to get any interest for the simple reason that nothing substantial has accrued thereon. Obviously, the impugned order was passed allowing the petitioner to withdraw the sum deposited with interest which accrued, if any, or at all. Therefore, in consideration of the facts and circumstances no clarification or modification is called for at all. Regarding the prayer of the petitioner in the Rule that some allowances are still outstanding or in other words, the respondents/opposite parties have not made full payment of the petitioner's salary and allowances, nothing can be done at this stage on according to the respondents/opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, nothing is due at all on accounts. The petitioner in the Rule if really aggrieved, may take appropriate steps for realisation of any outstanding dues, if at all due to him. The application is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. 1 and 2, nothing is due at all on accounts. The petitioner in the Rule if really aggrieved, may take appropriate steps for realisation of any outstanding dues, if at all due to him. The application is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. " ( 3 ) SHRI Vidyadharan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 19 of the application and submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,032/- is still due to the petitioner from the respondent. It has been submitted that no salary has been paid from September, 197 9/01/1980 nor any interest has been paid to him. ( 4 ) IN this case an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that the salary of the petitioner was deposited in a current account and thus no interest was paid by the Bank on the said deposit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had refused to accept the salary only from February, 1980 and thus the same, was deposited in a particular account which was a current Bank Account. It has, however, been admitted that the petitioner is still entitled to a sum of Rs. 633. 37 paisa. ( 5 ) MR. Dey further submitted that in a contempt application, there is no scope for going into the details of accountings nor in such a proceeding the court can permit the parties to adduce evidence. The learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopal Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1973 Calcutta Law Journal 189 : ( AIR 1974 Cal 3 ). ( 6 ) THIS Court by an order dated 8/06/1994 permitted the petitioner to go through accounts and also directed the respondents to produce the documents before the petitioner to show that the salary of the petitioner was deposited in a Current account and thus no interest was paid by the Bank. It is stated that despite the same, the petitioner has not gone through the Accounts. However, the said contention has been denied by the petitioner. It is stated that despite the same, the petitioner has not gone through the Accounts. However, the said contention has been denied by the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT is now well known that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is very limited. This Court can pass an order punishing the contemner only in the event it comes to a clear finding that the order of the court has wilfully and deliberately been violated. Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines civil contempt as meaning :- ( 8 ) IN this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (A ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. ( 9 ) IT has also to be borne in mind that before an alleged contemner can be punished for violating the order of the Court, the violation must be wilful. ( 10 ) IN Manish Gupta v. Gurudas Roy, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1359 , the Apex Court pointed out that for the purpose of Civil Contempt it is necessary that there should be wilful or deliberate disobedience of orders of the Court. ( 11 ) IN Gopal Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1973 Calcutta Law Journal 189 : ( AIR 1974 Cal 3 ), this Court held :-"an adjudication of such disputed questions of fact will involve examination of witnesses in wide compass in this Court far off from the limit of jurisdiction of the local court. It will not be proper or appropriate for such enquiry to be held in a summary jurisdiction in the trial of the contempt proceeding. " ( 12 ) THE petitioner was entitled to payment of interest on the bank account, if any, has been accrued on such deposit. ( 13 ) S. K. Hajari, J. in his order merely allowed the Petitioner to withdraw the amount in question with interest accrued thereon. " ( 12 ) THE petitioner was entitled to payment of interest on the bank account, if any, has been accrued on such deposit. ( 13 ) S. K. Hajari, J. in his order merely allowed the Petitioner to withdraw the amount in question with interest accrued thereon. ( 14 ) THE said order has later on been classified to the effect that interests is to be paid to the petitioner, if any, or at all. According to the contemner no such interest has accrued as the amount was deposited in a current account, in support whereof the respondents have annexed a certificate issued by the concerned bank. ( 15 ) THE only other dispute raised by the petitioner is that his salary for the period September, 197 9/01/1980 has not been paid. It is not the case of this petitioner that the said amount was deposited in the Bank and thus even assuming that the salary for the said period has not been paid to the petitioner, it cannot he said that there has been any violation of the order passed by this Court. ( 16 ) THE petitioner despite an opportunity having been given did not inspect the Accounts. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, I may record that Mr. Dey appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assured this Court that if the salary and other allowances for the period September, 197 9/01/1980 have not been paid to the petitioner, the same would be done. In my opinion, it may not be at all difficult for the parties to sort out their dispute on that score as the matters relating to payment of salary would be borne out of the records. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, the respondent must pay the admitted balance amount to the petitioner, with regard to the other disputed amount, if any, the petitioner may seek alternative remedy. ( 19 ) THE application is disposed of with the aforementioned direction and observations but without any order as to costs. Order accordingly.