Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 943 (JHR)

Padmalochan Kalindi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-08

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA, N.N.TIWARI

body2009
Judgment 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 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. 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 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.