IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 134 of 2011 -------- Sita Kumari wife of Sri Dina Nath Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Sheopuri, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag (Sadar, District- Hazaribag …... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. A.K. Singh, the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. Smt. Anjali Das, Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi 4. Ravindra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 5. Ram Naresh Jha, Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Hazaribagh (Sadar), District- Hazaribagh 6. Binod Narayan, Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Hazaribagh (Sadar), District- Hazaribagh 7. Shashi Shanker Prasad, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Hazaribagh (Sadar), District- Hazaribagh 8. S. K. Kant, Incharge, Medical Hospital, Primary Health Centre, Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Hazaribagh (Sadar), District- Hazaribagh …... Respondents -------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL -------- For the petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, JC to GP-I. -------- th Order No. 08: Dated 06 February, 2015 Per D. N. Patel, J.:
1. This application has been preferred by the applicant (original petitioner) for the alleged breach of the order, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 646 of 2008 dated 4th May, 2010. The direction given by this Court reads as under:
“5. As regards the petitioner's grievance in respect of her non-payment of arrears of salary and current salary, the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to assess the total amount of arrears of salary payable to the petitioner and pay the same to her within two months from the date of this order. The respondent authorities shall also ensure that the petitioner is paid her current salary as also the future salary promptly every month. In the event the of salary is not paid within the period stipulated in this order, then such amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum payable from the date of lapse of the stipulated period of two months, till the date of final payment. With these observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the 2. respondent State.”
2. Learned counsel for the applicant (original petitioner) has argued out the case at length and submitted that this applicant (original petitioner) was not allowed to resume the duties, as stated in the earlier order, and, therefore, the salary should be paid to her with effect from 20th December, 2007 to 14th August, 2009 whereas the opposite parties have made payment from 15th August, 2009 and, thus, the opposite parties have deliberately committed breach of the order, passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties has submitted that the legally payable amount has already been calculated as per the aforesaid direction and has already been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has also taken this Court to various Annexures, enclosed with the affidavits, filed by the opposite parties and has submitted that the detailed calculation and detailed orders, passed by the opposite parties, are annexed with the various affidavits and as the legally payable amount has already been paid to the petitioner, there is no defiance of the order, passed by this Court, by the opposite parties.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to initiate action against the opposite parties under the Contempt of Courts Act, mainly for the following facts and reasons. (i) The direction, given by this Court, as stated herein above, is in paragraph no. 5 of the order, passed by this Court dated 4 th May, 2010 in W.P.(S) No. 646 of 2008; (ii) Looking to the said direction, initially the calculation was to be made of the arrears of salary, payable to the applicant (original petitioner), and secondly, direction was to pay the same within a period of two months; (iii) It appears that the opposite parties have passed an order dated 22 nd August, 2014, which is at Annexure C-1 of an affidavit, filed by the opposite parties dated 23rd September, 2014. Moreover, this order has not been challenged by way of a separate writ petition by the applicant (original petitioner). Meaning thereby, the said order at Annexure C-1 dated 22nd August, 2014, annexed with the affidavit, filed by the opposite parties dated 23 rd September, 2014, has been accepted by this applicant (original petitioner); 3. (iv) Looking to paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit, filed by opposite party no.6 dated 9th September, 2011 to be read with Annexure “K”, it appears that a detailed calculation of the legally payable amount has been pointed out; (v) Learned counsel for the applicant (original petitioner) has submitted that there are errors in this calculation. If the order passed by this Court is promptly appreciated by the opposite parties, the payment of salary ought to have been calculated with effect from 20 th December, 2007 instead of 15th August, 2009. This contention is not accepted by this Court for initiating actions against the opposite parties under the Contempt of Courts Act, mainly for the reason that the order passed by this Court dated 4 th May, 2010 in W.P.(S) No. 646 of 2008 speaks about a direction to assess the total amount of arrears of salary, payable to the applicant (original petitioner) and pursuant to the said direction, calculation has been made. If the applicant (original petitioner) is aggrieved of this calculation to be read with an order at Annexure “C-1”, annexed with the affidavit, filed by the opposite parties dated 23rd September, 2014, she is always at liberty to challenge the same. (vi) Similarly, there is one another affidavit, filed by the opposite parties dated 9th January, 2013. Looking to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the said affidavit to be read with Annexure 'O', it appears that there is payment of the amount, whatever is calculated by the opposite parties. (vii) Learned counsel for the applicant (original petitioner) relying upon the decisions, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Director of Education, Uttaranchal & ors. v. Ved Prakash Joshi & ors., as reported in (2005)6 SCC98and Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah, as reported in (2007)7 SCC689and several other decisions, has submitted that the order passed by this Court should remain as it is and no “comma” or “full- stop” can be added or deleted, during the contempt proceedings. (viii) In view of the aforesaid decision, looking to paragraph no.5 of the order, passed by this Court dated 4th May, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 646 of 2008 and without adding or deleting any “comma” or “full-stop” if the direction is read, the State was directed to assess the payable amount of the arrears of salary. This Court has never directed to 4. calculate the arrears of salary with effect from 20th December, 2007. It happens that the Government Officers are passing the orders as per their own understanding of law and as per their wisdom. Similarly, there may be an error in the order, passed by the opposite parties, but, as stated in the aforesaid judgment, the order, passed by the opposite parties has to be appreciated. While appreciating the calculation/order passed by the State-opposite parties, which are at Annexure “K”, “O” and “C-1”, annexed with the affidavits dated 9 th September, 2011, 9th January, 2013 and 23rd September, 2014 respectively, there is no willful defiance of the order, passed by this Court dated 4th May, 2010 in W.P.(S) No. 646 of 2008, by the opposite parties.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this contempt petition is hereby dismissed. ( D.N. Patel, J.
) A.K.Verma/