Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Laxmi Narayan Mishra And Anr on 24 July, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B.B.Mangalmurti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6213 of 2016
Income Tax Department through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1.Ajit Kumar Ojha
2.Nand Kishore Pandey
3.Arvind Kumar
4.Ram Dev Yadav
5.Amar Nath Ram
6.Ravindra Prasad
7.Kuldip Kumar
8.Ghanshyam Choubey
9.Ram Nath Prasad .... .... .... Respondents
1. Mr. N.P. Singh, the then Director General, division of National Academy of
Direct Taxes, Nagpur, Maharashtra
2.Mr. Tarkeshwar Singh, the then Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna,
Bihar
3.Mr. V.B. Ekka, the then, Income Tax Commissioner, Direct Taxes Regional
Training Institute, Jamshedpur
4.Mr. H.K. Sinha, the then Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi.
............ Performa Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B.MANGALMURTI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate
For the Respondents :
------
05/24.07.2017Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. The writ-petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of Rs.20,000/- as legal cost by order dated 19th February, 2016 passed in CCPA No.09 of 2010(R) by the learned Central Administrative Bench, Patna Bench at Ranchi.
3. A little background of the chequered history of litigation is required to be referred hereinafter:-
The instant contempt petition (CCPA) arose for non-compliance of the order dated 24th November, 2008 passed in Original Application No.10 of 2007(R) by which the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order for accommodating the applicants as Group 'D' (Single Post) staff. Order dated 24th November, 2008 passed in the original application was challenged by the writ-petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3325 of 2009 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 23rd November, 2011. The learned CAT was in seisin of the contempt matter and passed an order on 27th August, 2012 2 thereafter granting further three months' time to the respondent/petitioner herein to comply with the order of the Tribunal. That direction was also made subject matter of the challenge in W.P.(S) No.7328 of 2012. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 29th January, 2013 holding as under:-
"We are of the considered opinion that since the petitioner was entitled to appointment in group 'D' and since that post has merged into Group 'C' post and till the order dated 24.11.2008 remains as it is, the workman is entitled to get the benefit which were available to the staffs of the Group 'D' post who also without there being any order from the Staff Selection Commission, got the post in Group 'C'. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 24.11.2008. (Emphasis supplied) It will be relevant to mention here that the petitioner also challenged the order dated 24.11.2008 by preferring writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.3325/2009 which was dismissed on 23.11.2011 wherein direction was also given to implement the order. In that also there was no plea that workman cannot be given appointment in Group 'C' post by virtue of merger of Group 'D' post in Group 'C'.
There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
4. The respondent-department being dissatisfied with the dismissal of the writ petition preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14740 of 2013. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 07th October, 2013. The contempt proceedings got concluded only thereafter on showing compliance before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal took conscious note of the fact that the department took seven years time in complying with the order. It accordingly proceeded to drop the contempt proceedings and discharge the contemnors. However, considering the fact that a protracted litigation was pursued against ordinary individual employees for seven long years by the department, a cost of Rs.20,000/- each was imposed to be paid to the applicant to cover legal costs. The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that even after passing of the order by the Apex Court, the compliance took more than six months. Accordingly, the CCPA was disposed of with the cost as noted above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought sympathetic consideration for condoning the cost imposed by the learned Tribunal. It is informed that the cost has also been paid to the individual applicant as per the statements made in the supplementary affidavit filed on 10th November, 2016.
6. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner in the light of the relevant material facts noticed hereinabove. We find that 3 though there was considerable delay in compliance of the directions of the learned CAT and it was implemented only after the respondent department/writ-petitioner exhausted all his legal remedies, the learned Tribunal was inclined to drop the proceedings without prosecuting the contemnors for the delay in compliance of the order. However, in the background facts the direction to impose cost of litigation upon the writ- petitioner herein does not appear to suffer from any such error or illegality which warrants interference in such circumstance.
7. We, therefore find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B.B.Mangalmurti, J.) Anit/R.P.