Sri Subhas Chandra Sarkar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service-retiral benefits-deduction from retiral dues-claim for fixation of final pension and payment of other legal dues as well as refund of amount deducted from retiral dues-ground of alleged advance being disputed by petitioner-impugned order passed after lapse of eight years of retirement- impugned order on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustained at such a belated stage-it should have been sorted out at during tenure of service or at the time of retirement-impugned letter quashed-petition partly allowed. - constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - even the claim of advance has been disputed by the petitioner and thus it would have been all the more necessary to sort it out during his tenure of service or at best at the time of retirement and not at such a belated stage.orderajit kumar sinha, j.1. the present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:(a) the respondents be directed to fix the final pension of the petitioner immediately and to issue his authority slip and pension order on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.(b) the respondents be directed to pay his group insurance amount of rs. 5,577/- along with the interest which has been illegally recovered from his retirement dues.(c) the respondents be directed to pay the arrears of pay due to difference of d.a. from jan'1972 to sept'1993 with statutory interest.(d) the respondents be directed to pay his all legal dues including the security amount which is still lying with head post master, singhbhum, chaibasa.(e) the respondents be directed to pay the rest 10% provisional pension which is due for the period from sept'1995 to aug'1997 but has been with held awaiting fixation of pension from accountant general2. the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is legally entitled for all the legal dues with statutory interest and further entitled for refund of rs. 5,577/- which has wrongly been deducted from his retiral dues on false pretext of personal dues.3. the respondent nos. 2 to 4 initially in their counter affidavit have stated that payment of 100% up-to-date pension has been paid and also the amount of group insurance has been paid and arrear of due from 1.4.97 to 1.4.2001 has also been paid which is evident from annexure a, b and c. so far the amount of rs. 5,577/- is concerned it is stated that the same was duly paid on 4.6.2003 and the receipt are also annexed. it has also been stated that this fact has been concealed.4. in compliance with the order passed by this court original register has been produced today even though in the affidavit filed by the deputy commissioner, chaibasa namely shri sunil kumar it is strangely submitted that he is not in a position to produce the record/document of writ petitioner as directed by this hon'ble court. it is unfortunate to say the least more so when the original register has been produced on record today.5. pursuant to the liberty granted petitioner had earlier filed an amendment petition i.a. no. 1299/03 wherein at paragraph no. 2 and 3 a prayer was made for issuance of a direction against the respondents to pay him group insurance amount of rs. 5,577/- alone with interest which was illegally recovered from his retirement dues and further to pay the arrears of pay due to difference of d.a. from january, 1972 to sept., 1993. it has further been prayed to quash the order dated 20th may, 2003 issued by block development officer by which it has been informed that the amount of rs. 5,577/- in respect of group insurance of the petitioner is directed to be paid and simultaneously it has been ordered that the said amount is to be recovered from his monthly pension of rs. 1000/- per month. para no. 2 and 3 are self contradictory since in para no. 2 it says that the amount of rs. 5,577/- has been illegally recovered whereas, in para 3 it says vide order dated 20.05.2003 it has been ordered to be recovered.6. in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 at paragraphs - 6 & 9 it has been submitted as under:6. that in view of the submissions made here in below almost all claims of the petitioner have been fulfilled by the answering respondents. from perusal of annexure-a it would be evident that payment of 100% upto date pension has been paid. from perusal of annexure-b it would be evident that group insurance amount has been paid and from perusal of annexure-c it would be evident that arrear of due from 1.4.97 to 1.4.2001 have been paid to petitioner. the aforesaid amounts have been duly received by the petitioner. these facts have been suppressed from this hon'ble court by the petitioner. 9. that with respect to the statements made in para-8 to 12 of the writ application it is respectfully submitted that a sum of rs. 5577/- was duly paid on 4.6.2003 the receipts of which is annexed as annexure-b to this counter affidavit as such the relief claiming payment of rs. 5577/- is redundant and this fact has been deliberately suppressed by this petitioner from this hon'ble court.7. in rejoinder at para 4 the petitioner admits it which is quotes as under:that in respect of paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2003 it is stated and submitted that the petitioner had not suppressed any thing as claimed for. all the payment so far arrears due from 01.04.1997 to 01.04.2001 have been paid to the petitioner on 13.10.2003 i.e. after filing the writ petition and the gratuity amount of rs. 5577/- had been paid to him on 04.06.2003 i.e. also after filing this writ petition. 8. i have perused the register and also the pleadings and it appears that the petitioner during service period took an advance amount of rs. 5577/- through bill no. 137/95-96 which was for agriculture affairs and due to advertence the amount was originally deducted from the amount of group insurance dues but subsequently the said amount of rs. 5577/- was paid to the petitioner on 04.06.2003 but as the said amount was legally recoverable from the petitioner a letter bearing no. 239 dated 03.05.2003 was issued by the establishment, deputy collector, saraikela followed by the impugned order of recovery dated 20.05.2003.9. in any event the petitioner retired in 1995 and the order dated 20.05.2003 has been issued after a lapse of 8 years of retirement for recovery of an amount of rs. 5577/- from his month to month pension in installment which is on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustained at such a belated stage, more so, after 8 years of retirement. even the claim of advance has been disputed by the petitioner and thus it would have been all the more necessary to sort it out during his tenure of service or at best at the time of retirement and not at such a belated stage.10. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the letter dated 20.05.2003 which has been challenged by way of amendment petition being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. if the amount has already been deducted, the same will be refunded to the petitioner.considering the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is partly allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

(A) The respondents be directed to fix the final pension of the petitioner immediately and to issue his authority slip and Pension Order on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.

(B) The respondents be directed to pay his Group Insurance amount of Rs. 5,577/- along with the interest which has been illegally recovered from his retirement dues.

(C) The respondents be directed to pay the arrears of pay due to difference of D.A. from Jan'1972 to Sept'1993 with statutory interest.

(D) The respondents be directed to pay his all legal dues including the Security amount which is still lying with head Post Master, Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

(E) The respondents be directed to pay the rest 10% provisional pension which is due for the period from Sept'1995 to Aug'1997 but has been with held awaiting fixation of pension from Accountant General

2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is legally entitled for all the legal dues with statutory interest and further entitled for refund of Rs. 5,577/- which has wrongly been deducted from his retiral dues on false pretext of personal dues.

3. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 initially in their counter affidavit have stated that payment of 100% up-to-date pension has been paid and also the amount of Group Insurance has been paid and arrear of due from 1.4.97 to 1.4.2001 has also been paid which is evident from Annexure A, B and C. So far the amount of Rs. 5,577/- is concerned it is stated that the same was duly paid on 4.6.2003 and the receipt are also annexed. It has also been stated that this fact has been concealed.

4. In compliance with the order passed by this Court Original Register has been produced today even though in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa namely Shri Sunil Kumar it is strangely submitted that he is not in a position to produce the record/document of writ petitioner as directed by this Hon'ble Court. It is unfortunate to say the least more so when the original Register has been produced on record today.

5. Pursuant to the liberty granted petitioner had earlier filed an amendment petition I.A. No. 1299/03 wherein at paragraph No. 2 and 3 a prayer was made for issuance of a direction against the respondents to pay him Group Insurance amount of Rs. 5,577/- alone with interest which was illegally recovered from his retirement dues and further to pay the arrears of pay due to difference of D.A. from January, 1972 to Sept., 1993. It has further been prayed to quash the order dated 20th May, 2003 issued by Block Development officer by which it has been informed that the amount of Rs. 5,577/- in respect of Group Insurance of the petitioner is directed to be paid and simultaneously it has been ordered that the said amount is to be recovered from his monthly pension of Rs. 1000/- per month. Para No. 2 and 3 are self contradictory since in para No. 2 it says that the amount of Rs. 5,577/- has been illegally recovered whereas, in para 3 it says vide order dated 20.05.2003 it has been ordered to be recovered.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at paragraphs - 6 & 9 it has been submitted as under:

6. That in view of the submissions made here in below almost all claims of the petitioner have been fulfilled by the answering Respondents. From perusal of Annexure-A it would be evident that payment of 100% upto date pension has been paid. From perusal of Annexure-B it would be evident that group insurance amount has been paid and from perusal of Annexure-C it would be evident that arrear of due from 1.4.97 to 1.4.2001 have been paid to petitioner. The aforesaid amounts have been duly received by the petitioner. These facts have been suppressed from this Hon'ble Court by the petitioner.

9. That with respect to the statements made in Para-8 to 12 of the writ application it is respectfully submitted that a sum of Rs. 5577/- was duly paid on 4.6.2003 the receipts of which is annexed as Annexure-B to this Counter Affidavit as such the relief claiming payment of Rs. 5577/- is redundant and this fact has been deliberately suppressed by this petitioner from this Hon'ble Court.

7. In rejoinder at para 4 the petitioner admits it which is quotes as under:

That in respect of paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2003 it is stated and submitted that the petitioner had not suppressed any thing as claimed for. All the payment so far arrears due from 01.04.1997 to 01.04.2001 have been paid to the petitioner on 13.10.2003 i.e. after filing the writ petition and the gratuity amount of Rs. 5577/- had been paid to him on 04.06.2003 i.e. also after filing this writ petition.

8. I have perused the register and also the pleadings and it appears that the petitioner during service period took an advance amount of Rs. 5577/- through Bill No. 137/95-96 which was for agriculture affairs and due to advertence the amount was originally deducted from the amount of group insurance dues but subsequently the said amount of Rs. 5577/- was paid to the petitioner on 04.06.2003 but as the said amount was legally recoverable from the petitioner a letter bearing No. 239 dated 03.05.2003 was issued by the Establishment, Deputy Collector, Saraikela followed by the impugned order of recovery dated 20.05.2003.

9. In any event the petitioner retired in 1995 and the order dated 20.05.2003 has been issued after a lapse of 8 years of retirement for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5577/- from his month to month pension in installment which is on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustained at such a belated stage, more so, after 8 years of retirement. Even the claim of advance has been disputed by the petitioner and thus it would have been all the more necessary to sort it out during his tenure of service or at best at the time of retirement and not at such a belated stage.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the letter dated 20.05.2003 which has been challenged by way of amendment petition being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. If the amount has already been deducted, the same will be refunded to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is partly allowed.