Shri.K.Appavoo v. Mr.Aditya Kumar Jha
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT CALCUTTA
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) 30.1.2025 Item No.01 BR CPAN 41 OF 2024 IN WP.CT 66 OF 2023 Shri K. Appavoo -vsMr. Aditya Kumar Jha Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner (Virtual mode) Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
.... For the respondent (virtual mode ) The present contempt application has been preferred on ground that respondent/contemnor has willfully not complied with order dated 13th December, 2023 passed by the Court, wherein the Court directed as follows:- ".........Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to interest on pension at the applicable rate from the date of retirement till 21st May, 2013..........." It is submitted by the petitioner that the interest to be paid in this case was to be paid in respect of the retiral dues and not only in respect of „pension‟.
It is further submitted that, retiral dues is included in the word „pension‟ and as such the contemnor/respondent have willfully disobeyed the order of the Court and necessary orders for appropriate action be passed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor submits that the respondent authorities have duly complied with the order of the Court "to the last word" and there is no disobedience in respect of the said order.
On hearing parties and considering the materials on record, it appears that the proceedings initiated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Port Blair, included the prayer for the following reliefs:
"An order/orders directing respondent authorities to grant interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 31.07.2011 to the applicant to be calculated upon the retiral dues i.e. Rs. 29,02,411/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs two thousand and four hundred eleven only)."
The writ application before Division Bench of the High Court at Port Blair was against the order passed by the Tribunal, in the said proceeding.
The High Court did not interfere with the factual findings arrived at by the learned
Tribunal and also did not grant any interest on the pension which was received by the petitioner on 18th December, 2015 for the period between 21st May, 2013 to 18th December, 2015.
In the order of the Tribunal dated 17.10,2023 which was challenged before the High Court, the Tribunal passed the order with the following findings.
1. "It emerges from the record that undisputedly during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the applicant, he retired from service on attaining age of superannuation.
Since the disciplinary proceeding was pending, the pension paper of the applicant and other retiral dues could not be processed. As noted hereinabove, subsequently, i.e. after his retirement the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.5.2013 dropped the charges leveled against him. Further, vide order dated 30.7.2013, the disciplinary authority had also passed an order to the effect that the period of suspension of the applicant be treated as on duty. Thereafter, the office of the PAO had sought certain clarifications in respect to forwarding of pension papers etc.
in terms of GID (3) below Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Subsequently, after due consultation with Vigilance Department and the direction issued by the
said agency, vide order dated 1.12.2015 by following the said direction the PAO released the retiral dues of the applicant and the same was paid to him on 18.12.2015.
2. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that there was no intentional or deliberate lapse on the part of the respondents in consideration of the claim of the applicant as well to undergo several formalities before sanction of pension as also payment of retiral dues, it cannot be construed that no cogent reason whatsoever exist for release of retiral dues of the applicant.
In absence of any contrary material, we find that the respondents have sufficiently assigned cogent reason and explained in details the cause for delay in payment of retiral dues.
Thus, respondents can in no way be held responsible for the delay in payment. The prayer sought for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues is, as such, not tenable."
It thus appears that the term was "retiral dues" but as the order dated 13.12.2023 whose disobedience has been alleged categorically notes word „pension‟, this Court does not find any prima facie violation of order by respondent/contemnor.
The contempt petition having thus no merit stands dismissed.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )