Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Somnath Sinha Roy vs Dr. R. S. Shukla on 17 May, 2023
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
14 17.05.23 CRC 9 of 2019
CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 12087 of 2019)
Ct. No. 04
In
akd COST 18 of 2007
Dr. Somnath Sinha Roy
Vs.
Dr. R. S. Shukla.
--------
Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. K. De.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ms. Saheli Mukherjee.
... for the alleged contemnors.
Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya, Mr. Suman Basu.
... for the Principal Accountant General.
While disposing of the writ petition on 24th December, 2008 the earlier Division Bench held that the petitioner is entitled to a notional upgraded pay and his pension shall also be re-fixed after having considered his upgraded pay scale and other benefits. Even after the aforesaid direction having been passed the present contempt application was taken out alleging that the same has been deliberately and willfully violated by the alleged contemnor.
According to the petitioner, the pension has not been revised on the upgraded pay scale and there is a clear defiance of the said order; therefore, the alleged contemnor has exposed himself to be liable to be punished.
On the last occasion the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that he has forwarded all the relevant papers to the office of the Accountant General, Bengal, but did not receive any response 2 therefrom. We directed the service to be effected upon the Principal Accountant General and pursuant to the same he appeared before us and the contempt application was adjourned to enable the Counsel appearing for the said Principal Accountant General to take necessary instruction.
Today when the matter is taken up, it is submitted on behalf of the Principal Accountant General that he has already complied with the order by re-fixing the pension on the upgraded pay scale way back in the year 2011 and handed over a photocopy of the same before this Court. It is further submitted that after re-fixation the actual disbursement is done by the State Bank of India, La Martina School Branch and, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any violation of the said order.
Considering the submissions so advanced before us, it is really alarming that the responsibilities are passed on the shoulder of others on the pretext that he has discharged his duties and thereafter he do not have any control over the other affairs. The fact remains that the person is still knocking the door of the Court and has not been extended the benefit for which he was entitled to because of the lapses of one authority or the other.
Contempt jurisdiction is not restricted to be exercised for punishing the person violating the order of the Court willfully, consciously or deliberately, but can further be exercised to see that the order is implemented with its full rigor and force.
We, therefore, direct the petitioner to serve a copy of the contempt application upon the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India stationed at 01 3 Strand Road, Samriddhi Bhawan, who is required to remain personally present when the matter would be listed on 5th June, 2023.
Put up the matter as directed above.
(Harish Tandon, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)