Dismissed¶23

Anil Baran Bauri v. Esha Sengupta

Contempt – non-compliance of order dated 20.03.2017 in WPA 4544 of 2017

Calcutta HC28 Jul 2025CPAN/52/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition CPAN 52 of 2018 (arising from WPA 4544 of 2017) dismissed; alleged violation of order dated 20.03.2017 directing financial benefits to Gram Panchayat secretary, Chhirudih (Purulia); petitioner appointed to sanctioned post but not a vacant one; parent memo no.9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011 restricted financial benefit to appointees to vacant sanctioned posts; Additional Secretary's reasoned refusal dated 15.05.2024 accepted; no wilful or contumacious breach found; no order as to costs; petitioner's right to appointment left undecided; Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

What did the court decide?

None; the contempt petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶23

Anil Baran Bauri Vs Esha Sengupta — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated March 20, 2017 in WPA 4544 of 2017 has been complied with, and whether any contumacious, deliberate or wilful violation thereof constituting contempt has taken place. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The alleged contemnor considered all facts, notifications and memos and arrived at a reasoned decision in accordance with law on May 15, 2024, which was communicated to and accepted by the petitioner without challenge.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The two memos of 20th May, 2013 and 25th February, 2016 derive from parent memo bearing no.9008-F(P), dated September 16, 2011, which makes financial implications resultant only to persons appointed to a vacant sanctioned post.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner's appointment was to a sanctioned post, but in addition to an existing secretary, and therefore not to a vacant post, excluding him from the benefit of the memos.ratio¶20
It cannot be said that the order of 20th March, 2017 has not been complied with or that any contumacious, deliberate or wilful violation thereof has taken place; consequently no contempt is established.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — non-compliance of order dated 20.03.2017 in WPA 4544 of 2017 — petitioner, casual appointee as secretary of Gram Panchayat, Chhirudih from 31.07.1991, sought enforcement of direction to grant financial benefits under memos dated 20.05.2013 and 25.02.2016, traceable to parent memo no.9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011 — parent memo confines financial implication to persons appointed to a vacant sanctioned post — petitioner's appointment was to a sanctioned post already occupied by an existing secretary (post vacant only from 01.03.1993 to 20.08.1996) — Additional Secretary's reasoned order dated 15.05.2024 declining the request was accepted by petitioner — no contumacious, deliberate or wilful violation made out — contempt petition dismissed, no order as to costs — Court expressly did not decide petitioner's substantive right to appointment.

28.07.2025

rpan/ 25

CPAN 52 of 2018

Anil Baran Bauri - Versus Esha Sengupta & Others in

¶5

WPA 4544 of 2017

¶6

Ms. Bratati Dutta … for the petitioner. Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ms. Sujata Mukherjee … for the Alleged Contemnor.

¶7

The petitioner, an appointee to the post of secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Chhirudih from 31^st July, 1991 as a casual employee. To obtain regularization of his service and financial benefits thereof, the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court by way of a writ petition, being W.P. No.4544 (W) of 2017 [Newly numbered as WPA 4544 of 2017]. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order of March 20, 2017 directing inter alia the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Kolkata to take steps to grant financial benefit in favour of the petitioner in terms of the memo dated 20^th May, 2014 [wrongly printed, as memo is dated 20^th May, 2013] read with the memo dated February 25, 2016 in accordance with law.

¶8

The present contempt application has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the direction of the order of March 20, 2017.

¶9

¶10

Ms. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been in service since 1991 as the gram panchayat secretary and is presently continuing his service. She submits that it is an admitted position that the post of gram panchayat secretary is a sanctioned post and hence his appointment ought to have been regularised and the financial benefits due therefrom, ought to have been disbursed to him, if not by dint of law, certainly by dint of the directions in the order of March 20, 2017.

¶11

Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor, who has since been impleaded as the Additional Secretary, as the post of Joint Secretary in the concerned department is not available, submits that it is an admitted fact that the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary is a sanctioned post. However, the post has at all material time been filled in by a regular employee other than the petitioner herein. In fact, Mr. Galib has referred to paragraph 3 of the affidavit-of-compliance, filed by the Additional Secretary, Panchayats and Rural Development Department, Government of West Bengal which clearly states that there is only one sanctioned post of secretary, which was not vacant at the material time and there was a vacancy in the interregnum period from 1^st March, 1993 till 20^th August, 1996. Beyond this time line the post was filled in by a regular

¶12

¶13

employee. Hence, he submits that the directions in the order of 20^th March, 2017 has been complied as it is in accordance with law that the petitioner could not have been given benefits as he was not an appointee to a sanctioned vacant post. In fact, Mr. Galib has also referred to an order dated 15^th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, albeit after some delay intimating the petitioner his request for appointment and consequential financial benefits could not have been acceded to in view of such fact that he was not an appointee to a vacant post i.e., that of secretary, Gram Panchayat.

¶14

Ms. Dutta, in reply, has referred to two intimations – one of 20^th May, 2014 and the other of 24^th June, 2016 whereby the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Purulia has admitted that the petitioner had been appointed to the sanctioned post as the secretary.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been appointed as the secretary of the gram panchayat and has been functioning since 1993. However, it could not be controverted by the petitioner that he was not the sole appointee to the post. In fact, the Additional Secretary, Panchayats and Rural Development

¶17

¶18

department, Government of West Bengal has, on oath, in his affidavit-in-compliance stated that the post was filled in by a regular employee, except for the period from 1^st March 1993 till 20^th August, 1996.

¶19

The two memos of 20^th May, 2013 and 25^th February, 2016 trace their origin from the parent memo, bearing no.9008-F(P), dated September 16, 2011. The parent memo is categoric that any financial implication will be resultant only to those persons who have been appointed to a vacant sanctioned post.

¶20

I find from the record that the appointment of the petitioner was to a sanctioned post, but unfortunately in addition to an existing secretary and therefore, not to a vacant one.

¶21

The alleged contemnor has considered all facts and relevant notifications and memos and arrive at a reasoned decision in accordance with law on May 15, 2024. This decision had also been communicated to the petitioner, who has not challenged, but has indeed accepted the same.

¶22

In view of the aforesstated, it cannot be said that the order of 20^th March, 2017 has not been complied or that any contumacious, deliberate or wilful violation thereof has taken place.

¶23

In these circumstances aforestated, the contempt petition fails and is dismissed.

¶24

¶25

Needless to add that in the limited jurisdiction as a court looking into acts of contempt, I have not gone into the petitioner’s right to be appointed to the post of secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chhirudih.

¶26

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

¶27

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶28

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

Anil Baran Bauri v. Esha Sengupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Baran Bauri v. Esha Sengupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sephali Majhi Vs Moumita Godara Basu

Subhrajit Ganguly and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hillol Sarkar Vs Indrani Das

Kalyani Tiwary Vs Mrs Meenu Batra

Sri Ganga Sagar Saha and Ors. Vs Amit Kumar Saha

Ritwik Chakraborty Vs Kaushik Roy