IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE RESERVED ON: 16.05.2025 DELIVERED ON: 23.05.2025 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA WPCRC 475 OF 2013 +

CAN 1 OF 2011 (OLD NO. CAN 8006 OF 2011)

+

CAN 2 OF 2023 +

CAN 3 OF 2024 KRISHNA CHANDRA GHOSH & ORS.

VS.

DIPOK KUMAR DUTTA WITH WPCRC 25 OF 2018 UTTAM KUMAR SARKAR VS.

ASHIS KUMAR CHOWDHURY & ANR.

Appearance:

Mr. Arunava Banerjee, Adv, Ms. Simantika Dasgupta, Adv, Ms. Ritika Mandal, Adv.

Sk. Qareeb, Adv. ….. for the Applicants Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Adv. … for the State/Alleged Contemnor Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.:

1. A Writ Petition was filed in 2003 being WP No. 2299 of 2003 by six persons, all claiming to be Assistant Teachers in Bedrabad High School, (hereinafter referred to as the School) working at the said school from their respective dates of appointment or joining.

2. The Writ Petition which was disposed of by an order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17th November, 2003.

3. The order disposing of the Writ Petition had two directions.

4. First, the Secretary of the School was directed to send all relevant papers regarding the service of the petitioner to the District Inspector of School (SE), Malda, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

5. Second, the District Inspector of School (SE), Malda was directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said papers from the Secretary.

6. It is explicit in the order that these two directions contained in the order would take effect only upon the petitioners communicating the order to the Secretary of the School and the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda.

7. Both the Managing Committee of the School and the State of West Bengal had carried the order of 17th November, 2003 in appeal. The appeals were filed after a delay of 8 and 9 years, respectively. The appeals were not entertained. Insofar as the appeal filed by the Managing Committee was concerned, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal was not entertained, as the prayer for condonation of delay itself was rejected.

8. Thus, the order of 17th November, 2003 remained unscathed.

9. It is the non compliance of the directions in the order dated 17th November, 2003 that has given rise to the two Contempt Applications.

10. The Writ Petitioners filed a contempt application being CPAN 1771 of

2004, sometime in 2004, alleging inter alia that the contemnors/respondents had not complied with the directions in the order of 17th November, 2003.

11. A Rule was issued in CPAN 1771 of 2004 and the Contempt Petition was renumbered WPCRC 475 of 2013.

12. A second Contempt Application, CPAN 1842 of 2013, was filed by Uttam Kumar Sarkar, introduced as the seventh Writ Petitioner, who was added as a petitioner in WP No. 2299 of 2003 on 11th May 2012, almost 9 years after the Writ Petition had been disposed of on 17th November, 2003.

13. A Rule, WPCRC No. 25 of 2018, was issued in CPAN 1842 of 2013 filed by Uttam Kumar Sarkar.

14. Both matters have been taken up together as the subject matter pertains to the same acts of commission or omission by the same alleged contemnors.

15. Several orders have been passed in the contempt petitions, some of which are extremely relevant.

16. Two of such orders, dated 27th March 2015 and 6th July, 2018, are of relevance. They are relevant, since, by both orders the two rules WPCRC 475 of 2013 and WPCRC 25 of 2018 were discharged and both Contempt Petitions dismissed on the aforestated respective dates.

17. The dismissal of WPCRC 475 of 2013 was on a clear finding that the petitioners had not complied with the direction of the Court and were therefore not entitled to claim that the respondents had deliberately or wilfully violated the directions in the order of 17th November, 2003.

18. WPCRC 25 of 2018 was dismissed on 6th July, 2018 on a specific finding that the petit