Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1451 (JHR)

Vincent Barahi Toppo v. State of Bihar

2012-09-21

D.N.PATEL

body2012
Order 1. The present application has been preferred for alleged deliberate violation of an order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant (original petitioner) submitted that the petitioner is not paid interest amount upon the delayed payment of gratuity, provisional pension, cash (unused leave) and leave salary, as stated in Annexure2 to the memo of this contempt application. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid amounts were paid at much belated stage after the retirement of the present petitioner, which has taken place on 31st October, 1993 and, therefore, as directed by this Court, the respondents are bound to make the payment of interest upon delayed payment of all the aforesaid amounts. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 by the respondents. 4. Paragraph 2 of the order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 reads as under: “2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following relief(s). i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary for the period of 2 and ½years during which he was lying ill. ii. For payment of increment for the year 199091 for two years. Iii. For payment of interest on delayed payment of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998.” 5. Directions given in paragraph 7 of the order passed by this Court dated st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 reads as under: “7. Considering the above facts, concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar are directed to pay interest on the total amount of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998 at the rate of 5% per annum, calculated from the date when payments fell due, till the date of final payment. If the petitioner has any further grievance, he would be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar and if any such representation is filed, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the prayer made in paragraph 2, the order has been passed in paragraph 7 and the respondents have already paid the amount of salary, as prayed in the petition. Similarly, the payment of increment has also been made and payment of interest on delayed payment of salary has also been made and these facts have been highlighted in paragraph 6 onwards of the counter affidavit. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot increase the scope of the order, for the so called non compliance of which this contempt application has been preferred. The amount of gratuity or provisional pension or leave encashment has not been referred, at all in the writ petition, looking to paragraph 2 of the order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010. Thus, the contention raised by the applicant in this contempt application may not be entertained by this Court. In the contempt application, the order passed in the writ petition should be read as it is. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) This Court has passed an order dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 recording prayer in paragraph 2 and the direction has been given in paragraph 7, as stated hereinabove. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that looking to paragraph 6 onwards of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondents have already paid the legally payable amount to the petitioner, as per direction given by this Court. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner is not agitating any other ground for further payment of interest upon principal amount of gratuity, which was belatedly paid in three different installments as well as interest upon principal amount of provisional pension at a much belated stage as well as interest upon principal amount of leave encashment amount, which was paid at a belated stage. These items have been referred in Annexure2 to the memo of this contempt application and, therefore, the petitioner is insisting for payment of interest. These items have been referred in Annexure2 to the memo of this contempt application and, therefore, the petitioner is insisting for payment of interest. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the amount, as directed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 has already been paid by the respondents, as stated in paragraph 6 onwards of the counter affidavit. Whatever is demanded by the petitioner, looking to Annexure2 about the interest upon the amount of gratuity etc., which have never been referred in the order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 while finally disposing of W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004. This Court cannot enhance the scope of the earlier order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004, in this contempt application. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is due compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 1st February, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004. There is no substance in this contempt application and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.