Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 355 (GAU)

Bipasha Deb v. S. C. Das

2005-05-03

RANJAN GOGOI

body2005
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Pursuant to the order passed yesterday, reasoned judgment is being delivered in open Court today in the presence of (1) Shri B. Purkayastha, the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar, (2) Shri Bikash Das, Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury, Silchar, (3) Shri B.B. Dey, Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department and (4) Shri P.K. Chaki, AFS, (the then Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury), and presently working as the FAO, Election Department, Assam Secretariat. 2. The facts are long and an attempt is being made to unwind only what is essential. The Petitioner was appointed as L.P. School teacher by an order dated 30th January 1990. She joined on 20th November 1990 and on a claim that though she had been rendering service her salary was not being paid, the Petitioner instituted a writ proceeding registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 2055 of 1992. The aforesaid writ proceeding was closed by this Court by an order dated 24.08.1999 holding the appointment of the Petitioner to be a regular one and that the Petitioner was entitled to her salary. Consequential directions for payment of arrear and current salary was issued by this Court by its aforementioned order dated 24.08.1999. The directions of this Court not having been complied with, a contempt case i.e. Contempt Case No. 551/2000 was instituted, which, however, was closed by this Court by order dated 22.08.2002. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 24.08.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 2055/1992 and during pendency of the contempt proceeding as aforesaid, the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Assam had submitted a proposal to the Government on 22.05.2001 for payment of a sum of Rs. 3,59,149/- to the Petitioner on account of arrear salary. The aforesaid proposal was followed by another proposal of the Director of Elementary Education dated 24.05.2002 for a sum of Rs. 4,73,696/- on account of arrear salary due to the Petitioner for the period from 01.11.1990 to 31.03.2002. Though not so recorded, this Court will understand from the affidavit filed by the Director in the contempt proceeding, that it is on account of the aforesaid steps taken by the Director for payment of arrear salary that the contempt proceeding i.e. Contempt Case No. 551/2000 was closed by this Court. Though not so recorded, this Court will understand from the affidavit filed by the Director in the contempt proceeding, that it is on account of the aforesaid steps taken by the Director for payment of arrear salary that the contempt proceeding i.e. Contempt Case No. 551/2000 was closed by this Court. In the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Director though there is some reference to the information furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Schools that the appointment of the Petitioner was illegal, there is no evidence of any action on the part of the Director to have the order dated 24.08.1999 passed by this Court, recalled on the basis of the information furnished. Rather, in the affidavit filed, there is a clear and categorical undertaking on the part of the Director to implement this Court's order dated 24.08.1999. Thereafter, on 12.08.2002, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance, by a memo issued to the Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury, directed the said authority to honour the bill of the Petitioner to the extent of Rs. 4,73,696/-. As, notwithstanding the aforesaid developments no payment was made the Petitioner instituted a second writ proceeding before this Court i.e. W.P. (C) No. 5723/2003 wherein by an interim order dated 29.07.2003 this Court directed for payment of current salary of the Petitioner. As for arrear salary of the Petitioner, the Court had directed that pendency of the case will not act as a bar for payment of arrear salary. Nothing significant appears to have been done after the Court had rendered the aforesaid order until 16.08.2004 when the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department by a written communication directed the Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury to pay the arrear salary of the Petitioner amounting to Rs. 4,73,696/-. Copies of the communication dated 16.08.2004 were endorsed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar. In the affidavit filed by the Departmental Secretary it has been stated that the above decision was taken and the order dated 16.08.2004 was issued pursuant to the directions of the Court dated 29.07.2003. Thereafter, it appears that on 04.09.2004 the Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury wrote a letter to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar enquiring whether in concurrence with the Finance Department the bill of the Petitioner had been submitted. Thereafter, it appears that on 04.09.2004 the Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury wrote a letter to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar enquiring whether in concurrence with the Finance Department the bill of the Petitioner had been submitted. In response, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar by a letter written on even date i.e. 04.09.2004 informed the Treasury Officer that the concurrence of the Finance Department dated 12.08.2002 had in the meantime lapsed and that in any event the Petitioner was not entitled to any payment as the Petitioner's appointment was illegal. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar, by a separate communication dated 10.09.2004 also informed the Director of Elementary Education about the said facts. No action, however, had been taken by the Director on the said facts and no attempt was made by the Director to have the order passed by this Court recalled on the basis of the stand taken by the Deputy Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 10.09.2004. While the aforesaid developments were going on, the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar by a letter dated 14.09.2004 submitted two bills of the Petitioner signed by the Petitioner herself and directed the Treasury Officer to honour the said bills in view of the clearance on the matter by the Finance Department and the letter dated 16.08.2004 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department. On 17.09.2004, two separate bills covering the salary amount due to the Petitioner were also submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar. The Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury on 18.09.2004 raised his objections with regard to the bills submitted. The objections were as many as 13 in number. The Treasury Officer, on the same date i.e. 18.09.2004 also informed the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, finance (BT) Department about the said objections where after the Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department by a W.T. Message dated 01.10.2004 informed the Treasury Officer not to clear of bills of the Petitioner until the objections raised were cleared by the Education Department. The objections raised by the Treasury Officer, it must be noticed, though, did not specifically pertain to the legality of the Petitioner's appointment raised questions substantially relatable to the said issue. The objections raised by the Treasury Officer, it must be noticed, though, did not specifically pertain to the legality of the Petitioner's appointment raised questions substantially relatable to the said issue. The Treasury Officer, Silchar, by another W.T. Message dated 11.10.2004 sought clarifications/instructions from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (BT) Department with regard to payment of the bills of the Petitioner, particularly in view of the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner for payment and with particular reference to the High Court case. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department by his W.T. Message dated 13.10.2004 issued firm instructions to the Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury not to pay the bills of the Petitioner till the objections raised are cleared by the Education Department. In the above circumstances, the amount, due to the Petitioner, though cleared by the Education Department as well as by the Finance Department, has remained unpaid until yesterday when a bank draft for an amount of Rs. 4,73,696/- was placed before the Court in the name of the Petitioner payable in the account of the Registrar General of this Court, pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2005 of this Court leaving it open to the contemnors to so act, if they so desired. 3. The contemnor B. Purkayastha was holding the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar at the material time; whereas the contemnor Bikash Das was holding the post of Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury with effect from 20.09.2004. The other two persons, namely, Sri B.B. Dey, was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (BT) Department and Sri P.K. Chaki was holding the post of Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury until 19.09.2004. The first two persons, namely, Sri B. Purkayastha and Sri Bikash Das have submitted their written response to the notice issued by the Court whereas the other two persons Sri B.B. Dey and Sri P.K. Chaki are yet to file their response as they have been brought on record in the present case only by order dated 28.04.2005 passed by this Court. It is in these circumstances that this Court has now to determine whether contempt has been committed and, if so, by whom and the punishment/sentence that should be awarded, in the event the Court holds all or any of the persons present to be guilty of commission of contempt. 4. It is in these circumstances that this Court has now to determine whether contempt has been committed and, if so, by whom and the punishment/sentence that should be awarded, in the event the Court holds all or any of the persons present to be guilty of commission of contempt. 4. The entitlement of the Petitioner to arrear salary as well as current salary and the legality/validity of her appointment as a school teacher is not open to any discussion or debate. The matter has been settled by the Court by its Judgment and Order dated 24.08.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 2055/1992 and the said judgment has attained finality in law. The stand taken by Sri B. Purkayastha, who was holding the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar, at the relevant point of time, in the affidavit filed as well as oral explanations submitted, appears to be primarily that the Petitioner was an illegal appointee and, therefore, she would not be entitled to any payment. The findings recorded by the Court in its order dated 24.08.99 in Civil Rule No. 2055/1992 on the basis of which the directions dated 29.07.2003 were issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5723/2003 and the stand of the Education and Finance Department of the State pursuant to the said orders of the Court make it abundantly clear that the Petitioner was regularly appointed and therefore was entitled to receive her salary for service rendered. The stand taken by the contemnor Sri B. Purkayastha, as noticed above, thus, amount to sitting in judgment over the decision of this Court dated 24.08.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 2055/1992. That the contemnor Sri B. Purkayastha had filed a subsequent affidavit dated 17th March, 2005 taking the further stand that he had, nevertheless, submitted the bills of the Petitioner on 17.09.2004 which remained unpaid on account of Treasury objections would not absolve the contemnor inasmuch as the said objections of the Treasury were raised on 18.09.2004 on the basis of the stand taken by the contemnor in his earlier letter to the Treasury Officer dated 04.09.2004 to the effect that the Petitioner was an illegal appointee. The contemnor Sri B. Purkayastha, therefore, is clearly guilty of commission of contempt of Court. The contemnor Sri B. Purkayastha, therefore, is clearly guilty of commission of contempt of Court. Accordingly, this Court holds him to be guilty of contempt of Court and after hearing him on the point of sentence, consider it appropriate to order for the detention of the aforesaid person, Sri B. Purkayastha, in civil prison for a period of 15(fifteen) days together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The contemnor B. Purkayastha is directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 16.05.2005 who will ensure execution of the sentence imposed. 5. Coming to the second contemnor, Sri Bikash Das, what must be noticed is that the aforesaid person joined as Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury on 20.09.2004. The objections raised with regard to the bill of the Petitioner were of his predecessor Sri P.K. Chaki. However, from the records available it is clear that the aforesaid person i.e. Sri Bikash Das, was all along aware of the Order of this Court as well as the order(s) of the different authorities of the State in compliance with the Court's orders which required him, as the Treasury Officer, to pay the amount to the Petitioner. Yet, instead of honouring this Court's order what the contemnor was trying to do is to get clearance from his immediate superior i.e. Sri B.B. Dey, Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department. As his immediate superior had not cleared the bills of the Petitioner, the said bills remained unpaid notwithstanding the orders passed by the Court. In such circumstances Sri Bikash Das, Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury must also held to be guilty of contempt. However, having regard to the circumstances in which such contempt was committed and having regard to the gravity of the act, I consider it appropriate to sentence the contemnor Bikash Das to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). 6. Coming to the other two persons, what this Court finds and as has already been recorded in the previous order dated 28.04.2005 is that both the aforesaid two persons i.e. Sri B.B. Dey, Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department and Sri P.K. Chaki, the then Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury, also appear to be guilty of commission of contempt. However, contempt proceedings against the aforesaid persons are yet to be initiated and they are yet to furnish their response and heard in defence, if any. However, contempt proceedings against the aforesaid persons are yet to be initiated and they are yet to furnish their response and heard in defence, if any. Accordingly, I initiate contempt proceeding suo motu against the aforesaid two persons, namely, Sri B.B. Dey, Deputy Secretary, Finance (BT) Department and Sri RK. Chaki, the then Treasury Officer, Silchar Treasury and direct the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the aforesaid two persons and require the concerned persons to file their affidavit, if any, within two weeks from today where after the suo motu contempt proceeding will be listed before the Court for consideration. 7. The contempt petition shall stand accordingly closed in terms of the above order. 8. The Bank Draft ordered to be kept in safe custody of the Court Master will now be deposited with the Registrar General who will ensure payment of the amount to the Petitioner, Smti. Bipasha Dev, on proper identification.