Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA
AJIT KUMAR BANDAPADHYAY - Appellant
Versus
JAYSHREE CHOWDHURY - Respondent
C. R. 850 Of 1988
Decided On : 07/05/1995
CONTEMPT OF COURT - NON-PAYMENT OF SALARY - INTEREST ON DEPOSITED SALARY - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - SCOPE OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL CONTEMPT - SECTION 2(B) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - INTEREST ON DEPOSITED SALARY - PAYMENT OF SALARY FOR SPECIFIC PERIOD - SCOPE OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL CONTEMPT - SECTION 2(B) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - SCOPE OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL CONTEMPT - SECTION 2(B) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a science graduate and post-graduate diploma holder, was employed as an S-2 Supervisor. He filed a suit challenging his non-promotion to the next higher post, which was filled through direct recruitment. The suit was dismissed, but on appeal, it was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court. After remand, the suit was again dismissed. The petitioner claimed that he was being paid a lower salary from September 1979 onwards and refused to accept it. He filed a writ application for payment of salary, and the court directed the respondents to pay the outstanding salary and allowances along with interest accrued thereon. The respondents deposited the salary in a bank account but claimed that no interest had accrued as it was a current account. The petitioner filed a contempt application alleging non-compliance with the court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed by S. K. Hajari, J., merely allowed the petitioner to withdraw the amount in question with interest accrued thereon. However, the subsequent order by A. K. Nayak, J., clarified that interest was to be paid only if any had accrued. The court also noted that the petitioner had not inspected the accounts despite being given an opportunity to do so. However, the court directed the respondents to pay the admitted balance amount to the petitioner and assured the petitioner that if the salary and other allowances for the period September 1979 to January 1980 had not been paid, the same would be done.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order by not paying interest on the deposited salary? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of salary for the period September 1979 to January 1980?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents' failure to pay interest on the deposited salary was not wilful disobedience of the court order as the order itself was later clarified to mean that interest was to be paid only if any had accrued. The court also noted that the respondents had submitted a certificate from the bank stating that no interest had accrued on the current account in which the salary was deposited. 2. The court held that the petitioner's claim for salary for the period September 1979 to January 1980 could not be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings as it was a disputed question of fact that required examination of witnesses and evidence.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the contempt application with the direction that the respondents pay the admitted balance amount to the petitioner. The court also assured the petitioner that if the salary and other allowances for the period September 1979 to January 1980 had not been paid, the same would be done. The court made no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS application for contempt arises out of an order dated 26-9-89, operative portion whereof reads thus -"heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent (?) it is submitted on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the respondent wanted to pay salary but the petitioner did not take the salary. However, the respondents have no objection provided the salary is given in the scale of Store-keeper. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent further submits that since the petitioner did not accept the salary which was payable to me, the respondent have deposited the same in a Bank account and the respondent have no objection if the said amount is withdrawn from the Bank. Considering the facts the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the petitioner in the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner was S-2 Supervisor. He is a science graduate and also holds a post-graduate diploma. As he was not promoted to the next higher post which was filled up by direct recruitment, a suit was filed which was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment. It was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. After remand the suit was dismissed. The petitioner allegedly did not accept the salary from September, 197 9/08/1986 as according to him, he was being paid lower salary. He filed a writ application for payment of the salary and by an order dt. 26-9-89, S. K. Hajari, J. directed that the said amount be paid. The learned Judge as would appear from the order directed that as in the meanwhile the salary of the petitioner was being deposited in the bank account, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent in the bank along with interest accrued thereon. On 11-11-89 the petitioner admittedly has been paid a sum of Rs. 92,974. 23 paisa by way of salary from February, 1980 to August, 1986. It appears that the respondent filed an application for modification and by an order dated 2-2-1990, A. K. Nayak, J. passed the following order :-"learned Advocates of both sides are present. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed this application seeking modification and if necessary deletion of the words "along with the interest" in the impugned order dated 26-9-89. The application is taken up for consideration. Heard both sides, on a perusal of the relevant order and also the petition, I find that the respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay to the petitioner in the Rule the salaries and allowances including arrears outstanding and due to the petitioner in the main Rule since. , 1-9-79 along with interest accrued thereon. Undisputedly, all the admitted salary of the petitioner in the Rule, was deposited by the respondents/opposite parties in the Bank as per the previous order of Court. By the impugned order the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent/opposite parties in the Bank along with interest accrued thereon. It is now submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents/opposite parties that no interest has virtually accrued on the sum deposited, as because the said sum is lying in deposit in the current account. As such, the petitioner in the main Rule is not to get any interest for the simple reason that nothing substantial has accrued thereon. Obviously, the impugned order was passed allowing the petitioner to withdraw the sum deposited with interest which accrued, if any, or at all. Therefore, in consideration of the facts and circumstances no clarification or modification is called for at all. Regarding the prayer of the petitioner in the Rule that some allowances are still outstanding or in other words, the respondents/opposite parties have not made full payment of the petitioner's salary and allowances, nothing can be done at this stage on according to the respondents/opposite parties No
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
