← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPCRC/184/2023disposed

Ashok Kumar Lal v. Suniti Supai And ORS

2024-07-04Hon'Ble Justice Krishna Rao2 pages

03.

bd.

04.07.2024 Ct.38 W.P.C.R.C.184 of 2023 Ashoke Kumar Lal -vs- Sunity Supai & Ors.

In WPA 6798/2015 Ashok Kumar Lal -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sagnik Roy Chowdhury Mr. Biraz Biswas ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Shamim -ul-Bari ... for the contemnors.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Bari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors.

By a judgment dated 6th January, 2022 this Court directed the respondent authorities particularly, the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 7 to release the approved salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 7th September, 1994 till 27th March, 2014 within period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. As the alleged contemnors have not complied with the order passed by this Court dated 6th January, 2022, the petitioner has filed the present application. During pendency of the contempt application, the alleged contemnors have released the sanctioned

amount of Rs. 47,12,369/- and given details of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the authorities have sanctioned the amount of Rs. 47,12,369/- but the petitioner has received only Rs. 32,90,144/-.

Counsel for the alleged contemnors submits that the alleged contemnors have sanctioned the total amount but TDS has been deducted. After deducting TDS the said amount was paid to the petitioner.

Considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials on record this Court finds that the alleged contemnors by complying the order passed by this Court dated 6th January, 2022 released the amount.

In view of the above, WPCRC 184 of 2023 in WPA 6798 of 2015 is disposed of.

However, disposal of the present contempt proceeding will not prevent the petitioner to take steps for claiming the TDS deducted by the authorities from the benefits of the petitioner. (Krishna Rao, J.)