Calcutta High Court
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs Sutirtha Bhattacharya & Ors on 3 March, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-1
CC No. 98 of 2016
WP No.547 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Civil Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Versus
SUTIRTHA BHATTACHARYA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : March 3, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. S.K. Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Mondal, Adv.
Mr. P. Basu, Adv.
Mr. S. Prasad, Adv.
The Court : There is no dispute that the entire payment due to the petitioner has been made except on account of Performance Related Pay (PRP). The petitioner claims that a sum of about Rs.99,000/- should be paid to the petitioner on such account.
The writ petition was disposed of by an order of May 2, 2016 which was corrected by a further order of May 16, 2016. The final order did not expressly provide for any payment and the alleged contemnors and the employer bona fide interpreted the order to imply that the petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits of seniority and promotion with effect from September 1, 2008 without being entitled to actual financial benefits for such period.2
In course of the present contempt proceedings, an order dated November 11, 2016 recorded that the tenor of the order dated May 2, 2016, as subsequently corrected, required the financial benefits to be extended to the petitioner by the petitioner being deemed to have been promoted with effect from September 1, 2008 irrespective of whether the petitioner actually worked in such post. Following such observation, the alleged contemnors have graciously extended the financial benefit due to the petitioner on all heads except on account of PRP. The alleged contemnors contend that since such pay would be based on the rating of the petitioner's performance and the petitioner did not actually perform during the relevant period, the petitioner would not be entitled to the same.
The petitioner, however, claims that PRP is virtually another form of allowance to which every employee is entitled.
The alleged contemnors refer to an office memorandum of November 18, 2015. The computation and payment of PRP to the executives is indicated at Annexure-I to such memorandum. The methodology for calculation of PRP is indicated in clause 5 of the relevant annexure and it is evident that the eligibility level of PRP of an executive is calculated on the basis of the rating of the performance of such executive. Clause 7 of the annexure provides for five categories of rating and the amount earned on account of PRP is directly related to the same as PRP is determined on the basis of the annual basic pay and, inter alia, the rating obtained by the relevant executive.
Since the petitioner did not actually render service during the relevant period and, as such, his performance could not be rated, there is an arguable case made out that the petitioner may not be entitled to payment on account of PRP in addition to the benefits that have already been conferred on him by deeming the petitioner to have been promoted with effect from September 1, 2008.3
Since the interpretation of the relevant provisions pertaining to PRP does not appear to be outlandish or inconceivable, the alleged contemnors cannot be found guilty of having violated the order dated May 2, 2016, as modified on May 16, 2016. Accordingly, CC No. 98 of 2016 is dropped. Nothing in this order will prevent the petitioner herein from pursuing the claim on account of PRP, if the petitioner is so entitled.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) sg.