D. S. Mukhopadhyay S/o Late D.P. Mukhopadhyay Aged About 71 Years Retired As Sr v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 491 of 2024 D. S. Mukhopadhyay S/o Late D.P. Mukhopadhyay Aged About 71 Years Retired As Sr. Private Secretary, P.No. 130333, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai 490001. Presently Residing At House No. 29, Block- D/4, 4th Floor, Chouhan Green Valley, Junwani, P.O. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 490020 ... Applicant versus 1 - Shri Anirban Dasgupta Chief Executive Officer (Now Re-Designated As Director In-Charge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 490001
Legal Reasoning
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to get the promotion to the executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of wages. It is ordered accordingly. The verdict passed by the Tribunal stands set aside. Annexure D/1 order passed by the Respondent / Management granting only ‘notional promotion’ w.e.f. 30.06.2006 stands modified to the said extent. We are consciously refraining from awarding any cost. 12. The Petitioner, having retired from service way back 31.01.2013, the consequential benefits as above shall be worked out and disbursed to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within ‘three months’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.” 3. The applicant, appearing-in-person, would submit that he joined the Bhilai Steel Plant an an Assistant (Steno-typist) on 10.10.1975 and retired 1 2002 LAB. I.C. 474 3 from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.01.20213. It is contended that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in in Writ Petition (S) No. 259 of 2017, the applicant has been promoted to the Executive Cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006 by the respondent authorities. He would contend that the respondent authorities have also paid consequential benefits including arrears of wages, but huge amount in various heads has not been paid, which is about ₹ 7,80,000/-. It is contended further that earlier the applicant was posted as non-executive cadre, subsequently, he was promoted to the executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006. Vide Circular dated 29.04.2019, Pension Scheme for employees of Steel Authority of India Limited (henceforth, ‘SAIL’) was introduced and it was effected for employees of executive-cadre from 01.01.2007 and for the employees of non-executive cadre, the same was effected from 01.01.2012, therefore, as per aforesaid Circular, the applicant is entitled to get pension but the same is not being paid to him. Thus, the applicant-appearing in person submits that order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in WPS No.259 of 2017 has not been complied with in its letter & spirit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / contemnors while referring to its its reply would submit that in compliance of order under contempt dated 02.08.2019, the applicant was granted promotion to the post of executive cadre w.e.f. 30.06.2006 and he has also been paid all consequential benefits including arrears of wages. He further submits that earlier the applicant had filed contempt case No. 527 of 2021 stating inter alia that after payment of consequential benefits including arrears of wages, ₹ 1,70,000/- is still outstanding amount recoverable from respondents herein, that contempt petition was 4 disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 granting liberty to applicant to file additional representation along with copy of that order within 10 days from the date of passing of said order. In pursuance thereof, the applicant filed representation to the respondent authorities on 13.12.2023 (Annexure C-6), which has been decided by respondent authorities by issuing regular promotion order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure C-9) and also provided him calculation sheet of monetary benefits outstanding to the applicant, thus, nothing remains to be paid to the applicant. It is next contended that so far as contention of granting pension to the applicant is concerned, earlier the applicant had deposited contribution amount towards SAIL corpus fund in light of Circular dated 29th April, 2019 (Annexure C-14) issued by SAIL in respect of pension scheme for employees of SAIL, but when the applicant retired from service, then he had withdrawn his all the contribution amount deposited by him. Thus, since the applicant had already withdrawn his contribution amount, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of record of instant case as well as the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Contempt Case No. 527 of 2021 would show that earlier the applicant had filed contempt case bearing No. 527 of 2021 stating inter alia that after payment of consequential benefits including arrears of wages in compliance of the order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 259 of 2017, a sum of ₹ 1,70,000/- was outstanding to be paid to 5 him by the respondent authorities, but now the applicant has filed instant second contempt petition stating inter alia that outstanding amount is ₹ 7,80,000/-. This fact itself shows that applicant himself is confused that whether any amount is outstanding to be paid to him by respondent authorities or not and, if it is, then what is the total amount. In this regard, the applicant has also not stated specific fact in his representation (Annexure C-6) filed by him before respondent authorities, whereas, it is contention of respondents’ counsel that all the consequential benefits including arrears of wages has been paid to the applicant. Thus, fact remains that whether there remains any outstanding amount to be paid to the petitioner by respondents herein or not. This question becomes disputed fact as, as per applicant outstanding amount has not been paid and actual amount in this regard is also disputed, whereas it is contention of respondents that all the outstanding amount has been paid and nothing remains to be paid to the applicant. Such disputed question cannot be decided in contempt petition, rather such fact give rise to new cause of action in favour of petitioner. 7. So far as not granting pension to the petitioner is concerned, this aspect has been raised first time by the petitioner in instant contempt petition, as nothing has been observed by learned Division Bench in its order under contempt dated 02.08.2019 passed in WPS No. 259 of 2017 in this regard, therefore, compliance of such new aspect cannot be considered in the instant contempt petition. 8. In view of above, I do not find any reason to proceed further in the matter initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents. 6 9. Accordingly, contempt petition is dropped and the rule issued is discharged. However, the applicant is at liberty to file fresh petition for fresh cause of action, if the same exists in his favour. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.09 10:44:53 +0530
Arguments
2 - Shri Suraj Kumar Soni General Manager (Personnel), Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 490001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents : : Mr. D.S. Mukhopadhyaya, appears in person. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred by the applicant, appearing in person, alleging non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 02.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 259 of 2017 in its letter and spirit. 2 2. On 02.08.2019, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order, which reads as under :- “11. In the said circumstance, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ which is embodied in the Circular referred to by the Delhi High Court in Amar Singh vs. Union of India1 is not at all attracted, as the mischief was done by none other than the Respondent / Company and the reason for denial of promotion was only for filing a writ petition by the Petitioner; which could have been a reason at all.