Calcutta High Court
Prahallad Chandra Das vs Nikhilesh Das & Ors. on 26 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)1CALLT98(HC)
Author: B. Panigrahi
Bench: Satyabrata Sinha, Basudeva Panigrahi
JUDGMENT B. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Wrft petitioner has filed an application under the contempt of courts Act, 1971 read with under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for taking appropriate acllon of their wilful. deliberate and contumacious act and/or violation of the order dated 6th June, 1996 passed by the Division Bench of the court in P.M.A.T. No. 499 of 1994.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of Bhanderberia Debendra High School with effect from 16th February. 1961 which was approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Government of West Bengal vide order dated 6th September, 1965 with effect from the above mentioned date. Petitioner allegedly made certain complaints against high-handed, arbitrary and illegal action of the then secretary of the school.
3. Therefore, the Secretary along with his other supporters is said to have Gheraoed the petitioner on 1.12.1988 in his Office Room of the School and demanded the petitioner to tender resignation from the post of Headmaster. Therefore, the petitioner under constant threat, duress and compulsion, finding no other way submitted resignation. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools about the alleged resignation and narrated the circumstances under which he was forced to submit the said letter of resignation. It appears that the resignation sent by the petttloner'was accepted by the Managing Committee in its resolution dated 4.1.1989.
4. Being aggrieved by such resolution the petitioner was constrained to move a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C.O. No. 2055(W) of 1989 and a single Bench of this court presided by the Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee held that the question of resignation became more or less academic, particularly, after the petitioner attained the age of sixty years. This court also directed that all retrial benefit of the petitioner should be paid to him if he made representation to that effect.
5.The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge preferred an appeal in F.M.A.T. No. 499 of 1994 which had been eventually disposed of on 6.6.1996 whereby and whereunder this Division Bench directed to pay all retrial benefit to the petitioner found to have been superannuated on 1.12.1992. The School authority was further directed to calculate the amount of retrial benefit of the petitioner in accordance with the rule and after complying with other requisite formalities thereof in terms of the Judgment.
6. The order of the Division Bench was communicated to all the respondents through the learned advocate of the petitioner, under registered post and accordingly, the contemnors seems to have received the same. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Tamluk forwarded the said letter, asking the school authorities to complete the pension papers along with relevant documents. Therefore, on several occasion the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner asked through her letler to the respondent for complying the order of the Division Bench and release all the retrial benefit to the petitioner. But when the respondent did not take any action on such letters, the petitioner was obliged to file this application. The Division Bench has held inter alia as follows:-
"Having regard to the aforementioned two reports of the D.I. of schools (S.E.) Tamluk, and having regard to the observation made by the learned trial Judge, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioner's letter of resignation was not legally accepted and thus he continued in service."
The D.I. of Schools (S.E.), Tamluk as well as the school authorities may now proceed to calculate the amount of retrial benefits payable to the petitioners upon completing the service Book of the petitioner as also other requisite formalities therefore in terms of this judgment."
7. The appellant herein has filed an application for recalling and/or modification of the order dated 6.6.1996. It has been inter alia stated that Mr. Saradindu Samanta, who was the learned advocate Senior of Mrs. Seba Roy appeared on behalf of the Managing Committee and the Teacher-in-Charge of the said School. In the appeal his learned junior advocate was appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant. Therefore, it was quite likely that neither the interest of the institution nor of the Teacher-in-Charge might have been properly safeguarded in the hands of the learned senior advocate. This order has been passed exparte and thus, there are simple grounds to set aside the same.
8. Mrs. Seba Roy was appearing for the appellant and Suprakash Banerjee was appearing for the State. On the date of hearing Mr. Suprakash Banerjee with Ms. Arati Sarkar have appeared for the State of West Bengal, but it seems that none has appeared on behalf of the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee has filed application to recall the order by bringing some allegations against Mr. Samanta that he intentionally did not appear as his Junior was engaged for the appellant. This application was filed on 4.7.1996.
9. The petitioner has, however, challenged the maintainability of the recall application on the grounds that since School is under the supervision and control of the administrator as would be evidence from the compliance report of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Tamluk. The application for recalling of the order filed by some of the Managing Committee members is not maintainable. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/ appellant has claimed to have served due notice on the learned advocate appearing for the Managing Committee that the matter would be mentioned before this court. From time to time, notice was properly served upon the learned advocate appearing for the Managing Committee.
10. Mr. Samanta, the learned advocate was appearing for the school authority has strongly denied the grounds raised against him in the recall application. It further appears that the State Government has also no objection if the amount is paid to the writ petitioner. The Managing Committee shall not suffer any loss if the amount is released in favour of the petitioner. Thus, on total consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the recall application, we find that it was filed with malafide purpose. Therefore, in the aforesaid situation, the application for recall seems to be benefit of merits.
11. The District Inspector of Schools has filed a compliance report that in terms of the judgment some amount has already been released in favour of the writ petitioner. The pension papers have also been sent by the administrator to the District Inspector of Schools. In respect thereof, the District Inspector of Schools on her turn sent it to the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance.
12. Though few members of the Managing Committee have filed this application for recall of the order passed by the Division Bench, we find such application is not maintainable in law inasmuch as now administration of the Managing Committee vests in the administrator. The administrator has already written to the D.I. of Schools recommending payment of pension. Provident Fund amount has already been received by the petitioner.
13. On perusal of the order of the Division Bench, it appears that the Managing Committee could not have filed the recall application, since even on merits the application does not deserve any consideration. The Division Bench based its findings on two reports of the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) Tamluk wherein the resignation letter was treated to be illegal as it contravened the Management Rules. Therefore, even on merits, we find that the Managing Committee could not have accepted the letter of resignation said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner. This court has correctly directed the respondents to pay the arrear salary and all retiral benefit to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case from any angle, we find there is no merit in the recall application.
14. Accordingly, the same is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Since the pension papers have already been submitted to the Director of Pension by the District Inspector of Schools, we hereby direct that the pension matters shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of communication of the order.
15. With the above observation, the Contempt Application as well as the recall application are disposed of.
S. B. Sinha, J.
16. I agree.
17. Applications disposed of