Bhupendra Prasad Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 July, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Bhupendra Prasad Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 July, 2010

Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cont Case (Civil) No. 156 of 2009

      Bhupendra Prasad Sinha                                   ............ Petitioner
                                    Versus
      Union of India & Ors.                                      ......... Opp. Parties
                             ----------
               CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

      For the Petitioner            : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
      For the Opp. Parties          : J.C. to Sr.S.C.II.
                                            -----------

2/26.07.2010

In this petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 29.1.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2008/2006 has not been complied with.

On perusal of the said order I find that this Court directed the General Manager, B.S.N.L., Golmuri, Jamshedpur - opposite party to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Further it was directed that if there is no clear provision for withholding the amount of leave encashment or any retiral dues in the circumstances appearing in this case, the said respondent shall pass appropriate order releasing the amount of leave encashment in favour of the petitioner.

It has been stated in the petition that though the opposite party in compliance of the same has passed an order, the same is sketchy and colourable, which amounts to non-compliance. The order has not been passed in terms of the direction of this Court and as such the order of this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. It has been further submitted that the said order is arbitrary and highly prejudicial to the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel and perused the order passed by the General Manager in compliance of the order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2008/2006. In the said order the points taken by the petitioner in his representation have been considered and the reasons have been assigned. Whether the reasons are justified and proper and whether the order is prejudicial to the petitioner, requires adjudication by a proper forum. The same is beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. Since the order has been passed in compliance of the direction of this Court dated 29.1.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2008/2006 there has been substantial. Compliance of the order of this Court.

However, if the order passed by the opposite party is prejudicial to the petitioner and against his interest, he is at liberty to take resort to the -2- proper legal forum. This Court does not intend to proceed with the matter further. Proceeding is dropped.

This contempt petition is disposed of.

(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Shamim/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court