Uttam Kumar Roy v. Suniti Kumar Palui Dist Inspector Of Schools Se Paschim Bardhaman And ANR

Court No. 2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.P.A.N. 1070 of 2024 in W.P.A. 10033 of 2020 Uttam Kumar Roy VS Mr. Suniti Kumar Palui District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Paschim Bardhaman & Anr.

Ms. Sabita Khutia (Bhunya) Mr. Krishna Pada Samanta Ms. Arpita Saha ..... for the petitioner Mr. Suman Sengupta Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick .... For respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Rudranil Dey Mr. Mihir Kundu .... For the State Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken 23.8.2024 (Item No. 18) (AB) on record.

This is a contempt proceeding arising from an order dated July 4, 2023. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the reasoned order was passed on May 16, 2024 which is already on record.

Today, Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 & 2 submits a report dated August 8, 2024 prepared under the signature of the jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools and the allied documents appended thereto, the same is taken on record. The bunch of documents shows that, the total retirement benefit payable to the petitioner according to the alleged contemnor was Rs.40,15,053/- after deducting the tax component from the said sum a

total sum of Rs.33,27,623/- has already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that, the payment made to the petitioner is not the correct quantum and a higher quantum is payable to the petitioner out of his retiral benefit.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the said reasoned order and the payment document it appears to this Court that, the order of this Court dated July 4, 2023 stands complied with, and if, there is any dispute with regard to the quantum of payment, the same cannot come within the purview and jurisdiction of the contempt proceeding, The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a fresh representation before the jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools, for his alleged balance claim, if any. The District Inspector of Schools then shall consider the same with a reasoned decision.

In view of the above, nothing further survives in this contempt proceeding.

The contempt proceeding being C.P.A.N. 1070 of 2024 stands dropped and closed.

The application being C.P.A.N. 1070 of 2024 stands disposed of.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)