Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pijush Bandopadhyay vs Chaitali Karmakar on 6 January, 2020
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
Sn 6.1.2020 W.P.C.R.C. 264(W) of 2019
1
PIJUSH BANDOPADHYAY VS. CHAITALI KARMAKAR
Mr. Pijush Bandopadhyay
..for the petitioner
(In person)
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
Ms. Sudeshna Das Mazumder
..for the contemner
This is an application for contempt filed for
alleged violation of the order dated June 10, 2019 passed by
this Court. By an order dated June 10, 2019, the writ petition
bearing no. W.P.43267(W) of 2019 was disposed of with a
direction upon the Sub‐Inspector of Schools, Chanditala
Circle, District Hooghly to issue a letter to the petitioner
stating what documents the petitioner was required to
submit in order to avail of his retirement benefits. It was
directed that such letter be issued to the petitioner within
two weeks from the date of the order. It was also made clear
by the said order, that the petitioner would be treated to
have retired from his service on May 1, 2017. No appeal was
preferred against the said order.
2
The contempt application was filed for non‐
compliance of the said order.
A contempt rule was issued on September 11,
2019 by this court.
On November 7, 2019, the alleged contemner Ms.
Chaitali Karmakar, Sub‐Inspector of Schools, Chanditala
Circle, District Hooghly appeared before this Court. It was
submitted that the order dated June 10, 2019 passed by this
Court would be complied with within two weeks from date.
An affidavit of compliance was directed to be filed by this
court. The personal appearance was dispensed with.
On December 11, 2019, it was submitted by the
learned Advocate for the alleged contemner that a notice
dated November 19, 2019 had been sent to the petitioner
calling upon the petitioner to submit the documents for the
2nd time by the office of the Sub‐Inspector of Schools,
Chanditala Circle, District Hooghly. The said notices were
received by the petitioner but the petitioner contended that
no steps could be taken by the petitioner on the basis of the
said notices as the number of the writ petition in the notices
3
were wrongly mentioned as W.P.4368(W) of 2019 instead of
W.P.4367(W)2019. The petitioner further submitted that two
memoranda dated June 25, 2019 and August 30, 2019 were
not sent to the petitioner. The petitioner also handed up a
compilation of certain documents on that day to show that
the notices dated September 19, 2019 and November 19, 2019
were issued to the petitioner in compliance of the order but
the number of the writ petition was incorrectly mentioned.
Today, when the matter was taken up, it is
submitted by the learned Advocate for the alleged
contemner, that the alleged contemner being a patient of
cancer was in hospital and undergoing Chemotherapy, and
as such the affidavit of compliance could not be filed. The
petitioner was present in Court and submitted that issuance
of those letters were not compliance with the order passed in
the writ petition and he was not going to acknowledge such
notices as the writ petition number was incorrectly
mentioned. The petitioner further informed the Court that he
did not wish to continue to proceed with the matter before
this Court as he was going to lodge complains before other
4
authorities of the Union of India against the illegal activities
of the respondents with regard to Mid‐day meal etc. which
was going in the school.
This Court was desirous to issue a direction upon the learned Advocate on record for the alleged contemner, to serve a fresh notice to the petitioner with the correct writ petition number in court itself so that the petitioner may take steps accordingly.
Upon such observation of the Court the alleged contemner was enraged, he abused the Court as also learned Advocate on record for the alleged contemner Ms. Sudeshna Das Mazumder. On being asked by the court what order could be passed at this stage he threatened the court with consequences and left the court, displaying very unacceptable and hostile behaviour.
Admittedly, the documents required by the authorities to process the retirement benefits of the petitioner was informed to the petitioner and the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the same. The petitioner refused to answer to the said notices on a flimsy ground of a mistake in 5 the number of the writ petition. Instead of furnishing the documents he misbehaved with the Counsel as also the Court and the intention of the petitioner in moving the contempt application is not clear to the Court. The documents showing issuance of notices to the petitioner is taken on record. The documents which the petitioner was called upon to supply for compliance of the order are as follows:‐ "1. For generating ONE TIME PASSWORD(OTP)
i)Email Id and
ii)Mobile No. in which OTP will be sent.
2)After getting OTP please submit FORM A&B through online and hard copy with the following documents.
a)Photocopy of Appointment letter (in 2 set)
b)Photocopy of joining letter (in 2 set).
c)Specimen signature( in 3 set having 3 signature in each set).
d)3 sets of joint photograph
e)copy of options of death cum retirement benefit.
f)Nomination form of Life Time Arrear of Pension and Death Gratuity.
g)ROPA options with fixation(original).
h)Photocopy of certificate of Madhyamick Pariksha or equivalent.
i)Photocopy of PAN, AADHAR, EPIC of incumbent.
j)Copy of confirmation service.
k)Family statement.
l)Photocopy of spouce's PAN, AADAR, EPIC." 6 It appears that the documents which have been asked for are his personal documents which any employee was required to submit for process of the admissible retirement benefits. Instead of submitting these documents the petitioner abused the Counsel as also the Court and left the Court without allowing the Court to proceed with the matter in a manner so that the dispute may be resolved.
The Court cannot sit and calculate the quantum of money that the petitioner was entitled to, inasmuch as, there are procedures prescribed by the service conditions of the petitioner which have to be adhered to and it is only the employer who can do the needful. Moreover, the petitioner has not come up with any calculation himself.
Under such circumstances, The Court has no other option but to direct the alleged contemner to process the matter in accordance with law upon receipt of documents as required from the petitioner. If such documents are produced by the petitioner then the retirement benefits as admissible should be released in 7 favour of the petitioner by the appropriate authorities with three months from the compliance by the petitioner.
The contempt application cannot be disposed of at this stage in view of the inability of the alleged contemner to file affidavit of compliance.
Let this matter appear in the monthly combined list of February, 2020 under the same heading.
Affidavit of compliance to be filed on the next date.
Office is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the petitioner. Office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Registrar General of this Court.
(Shampa Sarkar,J.) 8 9