Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 84 (ORI)

Ashamani Majhi v. Rajiv Vishnoi, GM

2017-01-18

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This application under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is for punishing the contemnor for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2585 of 2012 dated 29.1.2014. 2. This Court has passed direction in W.P. (C) No.2585 of 2012 which is being quoted herein below: “This Court on considering the submissions made and the averments made in the writ petition finds that this is a fit case whether the Tribunal should have directed payment of compassionate allowance to the petitioner (widow of the deceased employee). We, therefore, in addition to the relief granted by the tribunal direct the opposite parties-Railways to pay compassionate allowance to the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 65 of the rules. This direction issued by the Tribunal as well as the above direction issued by this Court shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the opposite parties 1 and 2.” 3. The opposite parties have appeared and filed show cause as well as additional show cause, inter-alia, stating therein that as per the provision of Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,1993 amount of gratuity has been paid but so far as claim of the petitioner for 2/3rd pension, the petitioner is not entitled to get the same in view of the fact that her husband, now deceased, was imposed with a penalty of removal from service under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 following conviction in a criminal case for theft of 14 Kgs. aluminum utensils from rear van of passenger train on 12.7.1983 for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment which was also confirmed in appeal. 4. aluminum utensils from rear van of passenger train on 12.7.1983 for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment which was also confirmed in appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the provisions as contained in Rule 65 which confers power upon the competent authority to forfeit his pension, gratuity who is dismissed or removed from service, provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both which could have been admissible to him if he had retired on compassionate pension, meaning thereby it is totally upon the authority to sanction compassionate allowance, in a case of special consideration, to the tune not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both, the authority have taken into consideration the case of the petitioner and granted 2/3rd amount of gratuity as would be evident from additional affidavit. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit and as such appropriate proceeding be initiated but we do not find any force in his argument reason being that this Court has directed the opposite parties to pay compassionate allowance to the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules and the Rule 65 contains provision to sanction compassionate allowance in a deserving case of special consideration, accordingly the authorities have sanctioned compassionate allowance equal to 2/3rd amount of gratuity. 6. So far as the contention that the petitioner is entitled to get 2/3rd of pension or gratuity, but since special consideration to be given by the competent authority as compassionate allowance and as such the authorities have taken decision in terms of the order passed under Rule 65, hence we find that there is no willful and deliberate compliance of the order. 7. Accordingly, we find no reason to proceed with the contempt proceeding. In the result, the contempt proceeding is dropped.