Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 591 (GAU)

UMESH CH. DUTTA v. BABU LAL SARMA

2014-06-05

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Heard Mr. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is 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 by the petitioner of WP(C) No.4647 of 2008 decided by the learned Single Judge on 24.07.2013. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 24.07.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.4647 of 2008 reads as follows: “5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel of the Education Department I allow this writ petition with a direction to the respondents more particularly the Director of Secondary Education to consider the case of the petitioner for past service rendered in Lalit Chandra Deka Girls' M.E. School and thereafter to take necessary steps for the purpose of giving retirement benefits. The necessity as well as philosophy of granting pension benefit to a retired government employee has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. D.S. Nagara reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 . It has been held that pension is nothing but a deferred wage of an employee who has given the hey day of his service to the Government. Paragraph 19 & 20 of the said judgments are quoted below: “19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answers to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answers to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad V. State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634 : ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ) wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in state of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 3 SCR 360 : ( AIR 1976 SC 667 ).” 6. On consideration of all these aspects of the matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner's past service in M.E. School has to be counted and he should be given retirement benefits. The same shall be done by respondent No. 2 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. The same shall be done by respondent No. 2 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 24.07.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) months from today, 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, then order dated 24.07.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 4647 of 2008 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 order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 24.07.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 4647 of 2008 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. The respondents will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.