Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 297 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar Singh Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-25

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, C.J. - This contempt petition arises in the wake of an application filed by the petitioner Dilip Kumar Singh Choudhary with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding for willful disobedience of the order dated 20.04.1999 passed in L.P.A. No.298 of 1996 (R) and violation of the affidavit of the opposite party no.4 (Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad) dated 07.09.1999 filed in M.J.C. No.632 of 1996 (R) with M.J.C. No.372 of 1999 (R). 2. Earlier a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.1969 of 1995(R) was filed by the Zila Parishad, Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad (a registered society) with a prayer to pay arrears of salary from 1994 to the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad along with its continuous payment as well as to deposit the G.P.F. In the said writ application, Zila Parishad Dhanbad had taken the plea that since amount of grant and loan are not being paid by the State Government and further arrears of cess/royalty has not been paid by the State Government to Zila Parishad and if such amount is paid by the State Government regularly, employees of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad would be paid their arrears and they will also be paid the salary continuously from month to month and as and when it falls due. 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ application, i.e. C.W.J.C. No.1996 of 1995(R), vide judgment dated 19.07.1996, with the following directions: “Having heard the parties, this Court finds that the Zila Parishad is admittedly entitled for at least the following amount from the respondent-State of Bihar namely, ……this Court passed the following orders:- (1) The concerned respondents of State Government are directed to release 30% of the admitted grant in favour of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, at least with respect to the year 1995-96, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (2) The concerned respondents of State Government are directed to release at least 5% of the total due against the head of cess/royalty to which the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad is entitled upto the year 1991 as shown in Annexure-A dated 23.01.1991. Such amount is to be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Such amount is to be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as rest of the amount is concerned, against the head of cess/royalty to which the Zila Parishad is entitled, it is expected that the respondent-State will take step for release of the same in near future. (3) The respondent –Zila Parishad and its authority are directed to release the arrears of pay to its employees and also deposit the provident fund of the employees, as well as contributory part. Such salary is to be released, including the arrears of its employees; and the provident fund and contributory part is to be deposited, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of one or other aforesaid amount. It is made clear that whatever the amount that will be received by the respondent –Zila Parishad by virtue of this order, the same should be utilized firstly for the purpose of compliance of this order and only thereafter it will be open to the parties to utilise the same for some other purpose.” 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge, State of Bihar had filed L.P.A. No.298 of 1996(R) challenging only one part of the judgment whereby and whereunder they were directed to release at least 5% of the total dues against head of cess/royalty upto year 1991 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thus, direction no.2 contained in the judgment dated 19.07.1996 was challenged vide L.P.A. No.298 of 1996(R). 5. In the L.P.A., this Court after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties rejected the prayer of the appellants and accordingly, L.P.A. was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.1999 with the following directions: “This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay 25% of the total outstanding dues against the head of cess/royalty, as shown in the letter dated 23.01.1990 of the Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar to the Zila Parishad within one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment before them. The appellants are directed to pay 25% of the total outstanding dues against the head of cess/royalty, as shown in the letter dated 23.01.1990 of the Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar to the Zila Parishad within one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment before them. The balance cess amount as shown in the letters dated 23.01.1990 and 30.08.1993, written by the Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, respectively, shall be paid by the appellants to the Zila Parishad within a period of two months thereafter. The appellants will further pay the due share of the Zila Parishad in the cess collected after 01.04.1991 within the same period of two months. If 30% of grant for the period from 1995-96 to the current year has not been paid by the appellants in terms of the impugned judgment so far, the same shall also be paid by them within a period of one month from date of production of the copy of the judgment to the Zila Parishad. The Zila Parishad is directed to pay the arrears of salary to its employees immediately after receipt of the fund from the Government. It will continue to pay in future the salary of its employees regularly every month as and when it falls due. It will also deposit the requisite amount in the provident fund account of its employees at the earliest. The appellants are further directed to constitute a Finance Commission in terms of Article 243-I of the Constitution, read with Section 135 of the Act, within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment before them. The Commission shall lay down the principles in terms of Article 243-I of the Constitution, read with Section 135 of the Act, for the period 1994 to date and place the same before the State Government for action in accordance with law, as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of its constitution. For this purpose the Commission will be free to summon any paper, document and record from the State Government and the State Government will supply the same immediately after such a requisition is received. For this purpose the Commission will be free to summon any paper, document and record from the State Government and the State Government will supply the same immediately after such a requisition is received. In this connection, the Zila Parishad as wella as the petitioner-respondent no.1 will have liberty to make representations before the Finance Commission and if such representations are made the same shall also be considered while laying down the principles in terms of Article 243-I of the Constitution, read with Section 135 of the Act.” 6. It is also relevant to mention that the two contempt petitions had already been filed for the non compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No.1969 of 19995 (R) and for the non compliance of the order passed in L.P.A. No.298 of 1996(R) vide M.J.C. No.632 of 1996 (R) with M.J.C. No.372 of 1999 (R). It also appears from the record that in view of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, both these contempt petitions have been disposed of collectively wherein, interalia, it was stated as under:- “whatever amount would be received by the Respondent-Zila Parishad by virtue of the order dated 20.04.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R), the same would be utilized solely for payment of salary and its arrears of the employees and for their future continuous/regular payment of salary etc. alongwith most essential establishment expenses such as court/legal expenses etc.” 7. Again after lapse of 14 years, this contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, Dilip Kumar Singh Choudhary, who is working as Class – II employee of Dhanbad Zila Parishad, in his individual capacity for initiation of contempt proceeding against the Respondents/Opposite Parties for willful disobedience of the direction as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 32 of the order dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and also for alleged violation of the affidavit of the respondent no.4 dated 7.9.1999 filed in MJC No.632/1996. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the funds received in terms of the order passed in LPA No.298/19996(R) was only meant for regular payment of salary of the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad but in violation of the order of the Court and also contrary to the undertaking given in the Court, the authorities of Dhanbad Zila Parishad had been diverting the fund for executing developmental works of Dhanbad Zila Parishad in utter disregard to the judgment and order dated 20.4.1999. According to the petitioner, the authorities of Dhanbad Zila Parishad could have asked for fund for executing developmental works as envisaged in the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 from the State Government but excepting letter dated 12.6.2006, the Dhanbad Zila Parishad has not approached the State Government, rather the authorities of Dhanbad Zila Parishad are unreasonably misusing the funds received by way of orders passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and MJC No.632/1996(R) with MJC No.372/1999(R) and therefore, the opposite parties are liable to be proceeded for contempt of court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad are being given their monthly salary on the basis of 6th Pay Revision and monthly expenses in terms of payment of salary and provident fund deposits comes about Rs.30 lakhs per month and yearly expenditure in terms of payment of salary and provident fund deposits come to about Rs.3.6 Crores and the arrears of 6th Pay Revision has not been paid. It is further contended that from the fund intended only for payment of salary of the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad Zila Parishad has passed a resolution to give Rs.25 lakhs to each of the elected members of Dhanbad Zila Parishad for the purpose of developmental works and such diversion of fund is an outright contempt of court as the same is in violation of the undertaking given by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Zila Parishad, before the Court in MJC No.632/1996(R) with MJC No.372/1999(R). The petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application, I.A No.32/2013, for taking action against Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, and for restraining him from misusing the fund received by the Dhanbad Zila Parishad in terms of the order dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1999(R). 10. The petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application, I.A No.32/2013, for taking action against Sri Ratan Kumar Gupta, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, and for restraining him from misusing the fund received by the Dhanbad Zila Parishad in terms of the order dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1999(R). 10. We have heard Mr.Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, Dhanbad Zila Parishad. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that from the order passed in LPA No.298/1999(R), it is evident that the Court has not passed any order reserving the entire amount only for payment of salary etc. of the employees, rather it has been directed that the payment of salary should be made regularly. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Dhanbad Zila Parishad, further submitted that Rs.50 Crores have been kept in fixed deposit exclusively for the purpose of payment of salary and future salary for the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad and the payment of salary to the petitioner and other employees is sufficiently secured. It was submitted tble Court has not restrained the Dhanbad Zila Parishad from utilizing the fund for any developmental works. It was submitted that Dhanbad Zila Parishad has passed a resolution to allot a certain amount of Rs.25 lakhs to each of the areas of 26 elected members of Dhanbad Zila Parishad for executing developmental works and spending amount for such developmental works would not amount to disregard of the order of the Court. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and MJC No.632/1996(R) with MJC No.372/1999(R) and also perused the materials on record. 12. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the present petitioner has filed the contempt petition nearly after lapse of 14 years of the order in his individual capacity. It was stated that the petitioner is neither a member of Dhanbad Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, nor is the office-bearer of the Sangh. On behalf of the opposite parties, it was submitted that the present contempt petition has been filed after lapse of 14 years with an ulterior motive to stop the developmental works of the Dhanbad Zila Parishad. It was stated that the petitioner is neither a member of Dhanbad Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, nor is the office-bearer of the Sangh. On behalf of the opposite parties, it was submitted that the present contempt petition has been filed after lapse of 14 years with an ulterior motive to stop the developmental works of the Dhanbad Zila Parishad. Be that as it may, CWJC No.1969/1995(R) and LPA No.298/1996(R) were mainly filed by the Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad, on the ground that arrears of salary along with its continuous payment as well as general provident fund were not paid to the employees of Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad. After the orders passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and also in MJC No.632/1996(R) with MJC No.372/1999(R), an amount of Rs.46 Crores and Rs.138 Crores was paid by the State Government in the year 2001 and 2010 respectively, out of which Rs.37 Crores was given to Bokaro Zila Parishad as their share and remaining Rs.147 Crores was left with Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. 13. After a gap of 36 years, election of all Zila Parishads including Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, had taken place. There are 26 elected members of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. As per Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, the Board of Zila Parishad is empowered to take decision for the development and others as per law. The district, Dhanbad, is rich in mineral and the town should have the minimum requirement of amenities, for which funds are required. In order to provide amenities and to execute developmental activities, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, passed the resolution dated 16.7.2012 to allocate Rs.25 lakhs to the areas of each of 26 elected members of the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. Keeping in view the minimum developmental works required in all 26 areas falling within the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, has taken a decision in its meeting on 26.7.2012 for doing developmental works upto the limit of Rs.25 lakhs for the areas of each of the elected members of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. 14. It is stated that the works of Rs.16 lakhs of each of the areas of 26 elected members of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, was executed from the same fund of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. The decision/resolution dated 16.7.2012 of the Board is well within its jurisdiction and there is no violation of the order/judgment dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and CWJC No.1969/1995(R). The decision/resolution dated 16.7.2012 of the Board is well within its jurisdiction and there is no violation of the order/judgment dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and CWJC No.1969/1995(R). It is pertinent to note that the order does not prohibit the amount from being utilized for developmental works. 15. Of course, in MJC No.632/1996(R), the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, had filed show cause stating that “the amount would be utilized solely for the payment of salary and its arrears to the employees and for future continuous/regular payment of salary etc.”. In the interlocutory application filed by Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, in I.A No.2729/2013, it is clearly stated as under :- “15. That there are Rs.50 Crores fixed in the Bank as fixed deposit exclusively for the purpose of payment of salary and future salary etc. for the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad out of which about Rs.4 Crore by way of interest is being earned by Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, whereas about Rs.3 Crore is to be spent for the salary etc. of the employees of Dhanbad Zila Parishad which is evident from the letter no.615/Zi.Pa. dated 04.05.2012 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad.” From the above, it clear that the future payment of salary and other payments payable to the employees of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, is well secured. When the payment of salary etc. of the employees of Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad, is well secured, the petitioner, who is a third party in LPA No.298/1996(R) cannot make any grievance of the same and we do not find any willful disobedience of the order dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R) and also the undertaking given by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, before the Court in MJC No.632/1996(R) with MJC No.372/1999(R). We do not find any ground for initiation of contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. 16. Zila Parishad, Dhanbad in its meeting dated 14.2.2012 decided to consider whether 30% of the deposited money of Zila Parishad will be sufficient for payment of salaries and post retiral benefit of the employees of the Zila Parishad. It was further decided in the meeting that sanction of 70% of the deposited money shall be given for development work in the rural areas. It was further decided in the meeting that sanction of 70% of the deposited money shall be given for development work in the rural areas. The Dhanbad Zila Parishad being the elected body is empowered to take the decision for the development of Dhanbad Zila, which is mineral rich to provide the requisite civic amenities. In this regard, it is stated that Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad has already filed W.P (C) No.1445/2012, which is pending before the Court and no order has been passed by the Court restraining the Board of the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, from utilizing Zila Parishad Fund in the development works/schemes. The Board of Zila Parishad is empowered to take the decision for utilizing the fund for development and others as per law. There is no legal impediment in utilizing Zila Parishad fund for developmental works/Schemes. However, what is the amount that could be utilized for developmental works it is for the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, to take appropriate decision. I.A No.2729/2013 has been filed by the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, for allowing the competent authority of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, to take up the developmental works/schemes upto the limit of 25 lakhs to each of 26 areas of the elected members of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. As pointed out earlier, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, is empowered to take the decision in allocating funds to each elected members of the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, from the Zila Parishad Fund for the developmental works/schemes. Since payment of salary of the employees of Zila Parishad Karamchari Sangh, Dhanbad is sufficiently secured, there is no impediment for Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, in spending the amount for the developmental works. I.A No.2729/2013 is ordered accordingly. 17. As per the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad is empowered to take decision for the development and other purposes as per the law. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision/resolution dated 16.7.2012 of the Board is well within its jurisdiction and there is no violation of the order dated 20.4.1999 passed in LPA No.298/1996(R). This petition is, thus, dismissed. Consequently I.A No.32/2013 is dismissed.