Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 252 (GAU)

JOGEN TALUKDAR v. ALOK RAWAT

2014-03-03

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
Judgment A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Barua, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging willful and deliberate violation of judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5637 of 2012. 3. The operative part of the judgment and order rendered in the Writ Petition (C) No.5637 of 2012, reads as follows:- “19. In the backdrop of what have been pointed out above, we notice that the resignation of the respondent herein was accepted by the impugned order, dated 18.07.2007, with effect from 30.09.2006. However, the acceptance of resignation by the petitioners with retrospective effect is wholly illegal inasmuch as the petitioners have accepted the resignation on 18.07.2007; hence, the resignation of the respondent herein had come into effect on 18.07.2007 and not before. To this extent, the office order, dated 18.07.2007, is incorrect and illegal. 20. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to receive benefits of pay and allowances till 18.07.2007 and his case ought to have been dealt with by the present petitioners accordingly. To the extent, as indicated hereinbefore, appropriate relief could have, and ought to have, been given to the respondent herein by the learned Tribunal. When the VRS became available to the employees of the respondent Board with effect from 07.01.2008, the learned Tribunal could not have directed the petitioners herein to make available to the respondent herein the benefits of the VRS, when the resignation of the respondent herein had already been accepted on 18.07.2007. 21. Referring to Rule 48 A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, has submitted that on completion of 20 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to receive the benefit of VRS. Suffice it to point out, in this regard, that the question of giving benefit of VRS to an employee, by virtue of Rule 48 A, would arise only when a scheme for voluntary retirement is found to have been in force. Suffice it to point out, in this regard, that the question of giving benefit of VRS to an employee, by virtue of Rule 48 A, would arise only when a scheme for voluntary retirement is found to have been in force. In the case at hand, since the VRS came to be introduced in respect of the employees of the respondent Board by the Circular, dated 07.08.2008, and the Circular was not given retrospective effect, it logically followed that the respondent herein could not have been given the benefit of VRS by resorting to Rule 48A too. 22. Because what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find that the impugned decision of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law to the extent that it has set aside the petitioners' letter, dated 06.05.2009, and directed the petitioners to give the benefit of VRS to the respondent herein by deeming him as a person covered by the VRS scheme. 23. For what has been discussed and pointed out above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside to the extent that the impugned order sets aside the communications, dated 06.05.2009 and 18.07.2007, and the direction, contained in the impugned order, to pay to the respondent the benefit of VRS. We have made it clear that the resignation of the respondent herein from service shall be treated to have come into effect on 18.07.2007 and, thereafter, pay, allowances and other benefits, which were, otherwise, available to the petitioner, shall be made available to him in consequence of his being treated to have resigned from the post of LDC with effect from 18.07.2007. 24. Before parting with this writ petition, it is made clear that it has been submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the respondent had to resign compelled by the circumstances, which his employer had created, and, hence, his resignation ought not to be treated as resignation at all and he ought to have been treated as having remained in employment of the respondent Board. Since this was not the case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal, we express no opinion on this aspect. 25. Since this was not the case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal, we express no opinion on this aspect. 25. On the above submission, which has been made on behalf of the respondent, we, in the interest of justice, give liberty to the respondent herein to raise the grievance, as indicated hereinbefore, by way of appropriate O.A and if such a grievance is raised, the learned Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 26. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt petition complains that despite petitioner serving a copy of the order on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. 5. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice on behalf of the respondents instead of sending notice through Court process and to avoid time. On our request, he has accepted notice and addressed the Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, we are inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 21.02.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) months from to-day, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5637 of 2012 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court’s order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stand disposed of. 8. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stand disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents is requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5637 of 2012 to the respondents, i.e. the officials concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. No costs.