Jharkhand High Court
Ram Narayan Prasad vs Mr. Ramesh Kr. Pandey on 12 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 447
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 572 of 2015
-------
Ram Narayan Prasad, son of Late Banwari Sahu, resident of Village
- New Madhukam, Kailash Nagar, Irgu Road P.O. & P.S. - Sukhdeo
Nagar, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... Petitioner
Versus
1.Mr. Ramesh Kr. Pandey, Ranchi University, through its Vice-
Chancellor, Ranchi, P.O - G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
2.Mr. Amar Kumar choudhary, Registrar, Ranchi University,
Ranchi, P.O - G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
3.State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the O.P-University : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
------
13/ Dated: 12th October, 2018
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
The instant Contempt Petition has been filed against non- compliance of order dated 07.01.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3929 of 2004.
2. Heard Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties- University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while disposing of W.P. (S) No. 3929 of 2004, this Court directed to release the amount against death-cum-retiral benefits of writ petitioner including the admissible interest thereon in favour of petitioner. In compliance thereof, though the amount in question has been released but the respondents-University has not released the amount accrued as interest for the period from July, 1994 till 2 the date of actual payment. Furthermore, the petitioner-husband being the nominee of the deceased-wife is entitled to get the entire amount of group insurance but the respondents-University arbitrarily, divided the Group Insurance amount in three equal shares according to their own will in the name of petitioner, her daughter and son ignoring the fact that the petitioner is the sole nominee for the Group Insurance amount.
4. On the issue of penal interest, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Shanta Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & ors as reported in 1997(1) AII PLR 202 and on the issue of G.I.C, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to decision rendered in the case of Mrs. Amirthavalli Mohan & Anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras & Anr. as reported in AIR 1995 MADRAS 431, learned counsel submitted that amount of Group Insurance is to be given only to nominee and not others but in the case at hand the Opp. Parties-University on its own have taken a decision to divide the amount in question in three parts.
5. Replying on each and every points raised, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-University submitted that retiral benefits includes: General Provident Fund, Pension and Gratuity. In the case at hand admittedly all amount against death-cum-retiral benefit has been paid. So far claim of the petitioner that interest has not been paid is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents referring to Statutes, for grant of retirement benefits to employees of the University, Appendix 'A' (General Provident Fund), submitted that at clause 6.Interst, it has specifically been 3 mentioned that "interest will be credited to the fund by the scheduled bank with which the account of the fund is kept". For further clarity, learned counsel for the respondents-University submitted that amount of provident fund includes the accrued interest. So far pension and gratuity is concerned, from plain reading of provisions as mentioned in the said Statute, it is amply clear that there is no in-built statutory provision for interest and this court while exercising contempt jurisdiction is to see only contemptuous conduct of the party and it is not permissible to examine the correctness of the earlier decision passed by the Court or go beyond the order passed by writ Court. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents-University referred to a decision rendered in the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal & Ors Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi & Ors as reported in (2005) 6 SCC 98.
6. So far amount against G.I.S. (Group Insurance Scheme) is concerned, the total amount of Rs. 96,000/- was divided in three equal share and the petitioner has been paid Rs. 32,000/-; Ms. Manisha Raj, the daughter of the deceased has received amount of Rs. 32,000/- and cheque of balance amount of Rs. 32,000/- has been prepared in the name of Sri Abhishek Ankit and vide official communication he has been requested to collect the same but he did not turn up. Hence, as and when he appears the A/c payee cheque shall be handed over to him after re-validating the same.
7. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the name of son of the petitioner has changed; hence there is difficulty in receiving the said A/c payee cheque. 4
8. Learned counsel for the respondents-University submitted at Bar that if the son of the petitioner- Sri Abhishek Ankit, as and when comes with proper identification and certificate/affidavit that Sri Abhishek Ankit and the changed name is the same person, the University shall immediately hand over the cheque.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 07.01.2009 as under:
"In view of this stand taken by the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of by passing the following consent order. The Ranchi University shall release the amount against the death- cum-retiral benefits of late Usha Gupta including the admissible interest thereon in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today after taking a written undertaking from the petitioner to the effect that he shall deposit 75 % of the total amount received by him against death-cum-retiral benefits of his wife, in a fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank in the name of his son namely Abhishek Ankit for a minimum period of five years and would submit a copy of the fixed deposit certificate issued by the bank to the university. Balance 25 % of the amount, the petitioner shall be entitled to spend against other essential needs of his son. The petitioner may however be paid the amount of family pension of his late wife without any condition.
(Own emphasis)
10. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that writ application was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2009, which was a consented order, mainly with a direction to pay all death- cum-retiral benefits with admissible interest and further to pay family pension to the petitioner. On the pleadings available on the record, this Court is satisfied with the show cause affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the 5 amount of provident fund including the accrued interest and other death-cum-retiral benefit has been paid to the petitioner.
11. So far rest amount of Group Insurance is concerned, the Opp. Party-University says that it is lying with him and the son of the petitioner is at liberty to approach the University with proper identification to receive the amount. Upon such representation/approach, it is expected that University without much technicalities shall hand over the A/c Payee cheque, as stated to be laying with the university, to the person concerned.
12. For the discussions made herein above, as the order has been complied with, the contempt proceeding is dropped.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-