Disposed¶28

Sikander Rajak v. Union of India & Ors.

Contempt – Limitation – Continuing wrong

Calcutta HC30 Jul 2024WP.CT/356/2012

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Continuing wrong; contempt limitation; Section 20 Contempt of Courts Act; restoration of contempt application CPC 10 of 2012; non-implementation of Tribunal order dated 13.09.2010 in OA 23 of 2005; substitute Bunglow Peon E.C. Railway; Railway Board salary direction; review RA/14/2011 disposed 23.05.2023; WP.CT 356 of 2012; decision date 30.07.2024; Bench: Partha Sarathi Chatterjee J., Tapabrata Chakraborty J.; writ petition disposed of, impugned order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22nd May, 2012 in CPC 10 of 2012 set aside; contempt application restored to its original file and number for consideration on merits by the learned Tribunal, preferably within six months; no order as to costs. ¶28

Sikander Rajak Vs Union of India & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal correctly dismissed the contempt application (CPC 10 of 2012) as barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, notwithstanding the petitioner's contention that the non-compliance of the order dated 13th September, 2010 was a continuing wrong.

¶17

Court's answer

The denial to allow the petitioner to resume duty and the non-payment of salary in spite of the Tribunal's order constitute a continuing wrong; consequently there was no scope for applying Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act (one-year limitation), and the dismissal of the contempt application as time-barred was erroneous.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 22nd May, 2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in CPC 10 of 2012 is set aside.

¶26

Key takeaways

The contempt application is restored to its original file and number, and the learned Tribunal is directed to consider it on merits and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from communication of the order.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt – Limitation – Continuing wrong – Writ petition challenged the learned Tribunal's order dated 22nd May, 2012 in contempt application CPC 10 of 2012 dismissing the petitioner's contempt application as barred by limitation, though founded on alleged violation of the Tribunal's order dated 13th September, 2010 in OA 23 of 2005 directing resumption of duty as substitute Bunglow Peon under E.C. Railway and consideration of intervening salary by the Railway Board. Held: the petitioner was indisputably not allowed to resume duties and has not been paid salary till date; such denial to comply with the Tribunal's order is a continuing wrong, so there was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act; the cryptic dismissal on limitation was unsustainable. The order dated 22nd May, 2012 was set aside, the contempt application restored to its original file and number, and the Tribunal directed to dispose of it on merits, preferably within six months. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

01 30.07.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

¶2

WP.CT 356 of 2012

¶3

Sikander Rajak

¶4

¶5

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder Ms. Ananya Adhikary

¶7

….. For the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Partha Ghosh Mr. Amitava Nayak

¶9

….. For the UoI.

¶10

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 22^nd May, 2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in the contempt application being CPC 10 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner alleging violation of an order dated 13^th September, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA 23 of 2005.

¶11

The operative part of the order dated 13^th September, 2010 runs as follows:-

¶12

‘In the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice shall be made if the applicant is allowed to resume his duty as a substitute Bunglow Peon to respondent no. 4 under E.C. Railway. He can resume his duty within a week of the receipt of this order. As far as the salary for the intervening period is concerned we direct the Railway Board to look into the matter and decide the issue as the CLW a production unit and Zonal Railway both headed by an officer of GM rank are having contradictory stand and the stand of the Railway Board on the letter sent by the E.C. Railway is not on

¶13

¶14

record. This exercise shall be completed within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order.’

¶15

Records reveal that after disposal of the OA, the petitioner submitted repeated representations dated 22^nd November, 2010 and 20^th January, 2011, enclosing the copy of the order passed in the OA to the respondents. As no steps were taken, the petitioner was constrained to issue notices through his learned advocate on 26^th November, 2010 and 16^th August, 2011 calling upon the respondents to implement the order dated 13^th September, 2010 but in vain and as such the petitioner was constrained to file the contempt application being CPC 10 of 2010 on 1^st February, 2012.

¶16

In course of hearing, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents has also brought to our notice an order dated 23^rd May, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in a review application filed by the respondents in the year 2011 being RA/14/2011. The learned Tribunal disposed of the said application by an order dated 23^rd May, 2023 observing, inter alia¸ that ‘at this belated stage, we do not deem it proper to pass any further order in the said R.A. ’.

¶17

Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the contempt application has been dismissed by a cryptic order. The learned Tribunal erred in law in not considering the sequence of facts and dismissed the contempt application failing to appreciate that the noncompliance of the directions contained in the order dated 13^th September, 2010 was a continuing wrong.

¶18

¶19

He argues that as the learned Tribunal did not interfere with the order dated 13^th September, 2010 in the review application, the said order attained finality but still the same with has not been complied with by the respondents.

¶20

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the respondents denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that as no proceeding for contempt was initiated within the period of one year from the date on which the contempt was alleged to have been committed, the contempt application was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation and in view thereof, there is no infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court.

¶21

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶22

The learned Tribunal passed an order on 13^th September, 2010 directing the respondents to allow the original applicant/petitioner to resume his duty as a substitute Bunglow Peon to the respondent no. 4 under E.C. Railway within a week of the receipt of the said order. As regards the salary for the intervening period, the learned Tribunal also directed the Railway Board to look into the matter and decide the issue within a period of two months from the communication of the order.

¶23

Indisputably, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties in spite of the order passed by the learned Tribunal and has not been paid any salary till date in spite of repeated representations served demanding compliance

¶24

¶25

of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Such denial to comply with the order is a continuing wrong and therefore, there was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act. The contempt application was dismissed by a cryptic order only observing that as the contempt petition was instituted on 2^nd February, 2012, the same was barred by limitation.

¶26

In view thereof, the order dated 22^nd May, 2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in CPC 10 of 2012 is set aside.

¶27

The contempt application shall be restored to its original file and number and the learned Tribunal shall consider the contempt application on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order.

¶28

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶30

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)

Sikander Rajak v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikander Rajak v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartick Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Parameswar Prasad

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt Subhra Banerjee and Ors.

Payel Chattopadhyay Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk Arfan and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nilima Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.