Partly allowed

Gita Maity v. Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui

Calcutta HC7 Apr 2021CPAN/1367/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the Division Bench clarified that the petitioner is entitled to 9% annual interest on arrear pension from November 1, 2010, rather than June 15, 1990, following a recent judgment in similar appeals. The court also disposed of the related modification application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner awarded interest on arrear pension at 9% per annum from November 1, 2010 instead of June 15, 1990.

Gita Maity Vs Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui — Contempt of Court | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

07.04.2021 ITEM NO. 21 wt 22 Ct. No.6 Saswata

¶2

CPAN 1367 of 2019 in WPA 8863 of 2017 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 (Via video conference) Gita Maity -vsParvez Ahmed Siddiqui & Anr.

¶3

Mr. Chandi Charan Roy

¶4

… for the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay … for the alleged contemnors

¶6

By an order dated May 5, 2017, WP 8863 (W) of 2017 was disposed of by directing the concerned Treasury Officer to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount released in favour of the petitioner by way of pensionary benefit, on and from June 15, 1990 till the date of issuance of the Pension Payment Order.

¶7

Alleging deliberate violation of the aforesaid order, the present contempt application was filed.

¶8

The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and the concerned Treasury Officer filed an application for clarification and/or modification of the order dated May 3, 2017 to the extent that interest should be directed to be paid with effect from November 1, 2010

¶9

¶10

instead of June 15, 1990. Such application is pending.

¶11

In the meantime, a bunch of appeals involving identical points have been disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench by a judgment and order dated March 24, 2021 passed in MAT 1858 of 2019 and other appeals by clarifying that in such cases, interest should be directed to be paid from November 1, 2010 instead of June 15, 1990.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, the contempt application and the modification application are both disposed of by clarifying that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrear pension with effect from November 1, 2010 instead of June 15, 1990.

¶13

Such interest shall be paid to the petitioner by the concerned Treasury Officer within two weeks from the date of a copy of this order being placed before the Treasury Officer.

¶14

Accordingly the contempt application being CPAN 1367 of 2019 and the application for clarification and / or modification being IA no. CAN 1 of 2021 are disposed of.

¶15

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis after completion of requisite formalities.

¶16

¶17

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

Gita Maity v. Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Maity v. Parvez Ahmed Siddiqui

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mihir Chorey Vs Sujit Kumar Maity

Kalpana Maity & Ors. Vs Dilip Kumar Ghatak & Anr.

The Brith Waite Burn and Jessop Construction Co. Ltd. Vs General Manager Eastern Railway

Universal Consortium of Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kanak Mitra and Anr.

Saraswati Jana Vs Anjan Saha

Dr Nazrul Islam, IPS Retd Vs Malay Ke De & Ors.