Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kadan Harijan vs Sankar Mondal on 14 September, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
14. 9 . 2011 W.P.C.R.C. 233(W) of 2011 in W.P. 20148 (W) of 2009 Kadan Harijan Versus Sankar Mondal Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, ..for the petitioners.
Mr. Usof Ali Dewan, ..for the alleged contemnor. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 5th September, 2011, Sankar Mondal, the Chairman, Jiaganj Azimganj Municipality, Murshidabad, the alleged contemnor is present in Court today. His appearance is recorded.
It is submitted by the learned advocate on behalf of the alleged contemnor that pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 16th June, 2010 hearing was granted to the petitioner and a reasoned order contained in the memo 2 dated 12th September, 2011 was passed by the Chairman in which it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to pension of Rs. 57,615/- of Rabi Ranjan, since deceased, and her gratuity of Rs. 59,203/-, totaling a sum of Rs. 1,16,818/-. It is further submitted as the Municipality is facing financial crunch such amount will be paid to her in four equal instalments and one of which will be paid before Durga Puja and other three instalments will be paid as and when funds permit. The alleged contemnor has undertaken before this Court that the first instalment amounting to Rs. 29,818/- will be paid to the petitioner on or before 23rd September, 2011 and the remaining instalments shall be paid within one year therefrom.
Since I find that the directions contained in the order dated 16th June, 2010 have been complied with and the alleged contemnor has given an undertaking regarding payment, no further order need be passed on the contempt 3 application. Therefore, contempt rule is discharged. Contempt application is disposed of. Further appearance of the alleged contemnor is dispensed with.
Let photocopies of the memo dated 12th September, 2011 and other documents filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor, be kept on record.
As prayed for by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to file application before the appropriate forum for payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity, if any, and if so advised.
No order as to costs.
(Soumitra Pal, J. )