Disposed

Panna Deb v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 May 2019WP(C)/1520/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court imposed total exemplary costs of Rs.40,000 on State authorities for inordinate seven-and-a-half-year delay in paying admitted arrear salary to a typist, despite earlier orders mandating payment.

What did the court decide?

Imposed joint and several costs of Rs.40,000 (Rs.20,000 interest + Rs.20,000 litigation costs) payable within three months; default attracts 9% interest.

Panna Deb Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010240842015

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 1520/2015

¶5

1:PANNA DEB

¶6

S/O SRI PRABHAT CHANDRA DEB, P.O. HOJAI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 782442

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KAPILI ICDS PROJECT DHALPUKHURI HOJAI 78243

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B CHOUDHURY

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL WELFARE

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 06.05.2019

¶18

Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. advocate appearing for the State respondents.

¶19

The petitioner herein has been compelled to approach this Court for the third occasion for claiming arrear salary from 01.07.2001 to 28.02.2012 for service rendered as Typist-cumLDA in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Kapili ICDS Project. Hence, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached for immediate compliance of the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) 6060/2003 and compliance of the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by this Court in Contempt Case (C) 338/2009. The facts of the present case is undisputed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not been paid salary from 01.07.2001 to 28.02.2002. The State respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in the matter and therefore, the doctrine of nontraverse would apply and the statements made in the writ petition is deemed to be duly accepted by the State respondents. By the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) 6060/2003 that this Court had directed the respondents to the following effect:

¶20

“It having been admitted by the respondents that they had rendered their services for one year from 28.03.2001, they are, however, entitled to their pay and allowances for the said period only, which would be computed and released to them within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

¶21

The following order passed in the above referred Contempt Case (C) 338/2009:

¶22

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 11.09.2008 for its implementation by a further

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

period of 6(six) months from today, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 11.09.2008 passed in WP(C) 6060/2003 shall have to be complied within even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the contempt court’s Act would be passed against each of them.”

¶25

Therefore, as the above quoted two directions of this Court were not complied with, the petitioner had to approach this Court again for the third time by filing the present writ petition on 12.02.2015. As the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Court, this Court by order dated 23.06.2015 in this proceeding had ordered personal appearance of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam and accordingly, it appears from the order dated 26.06.2015 that Mr. Kumud Chandra Kalita, Director of Social Welfare, Assam had personally appeared before this Court and he had submitted that the due process in respect of payment of Rs.42,261/- has been initiated and the petitioner was asked to make himself available in his office for collecting the cheque. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 29.06.2015, the cheque for the principle amount of Rs.42,261/- has been paid to the petitioner pursuant to order dated 26.06.2015 in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into for relief made in the application filed on 30.08.2017 to claim interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.42,261/- for the inordinate delay of seven and half years, in disbursing the legitimate dues of the petitioner and that too after disobeying the order passed in WP(C) 6060/2003 and continued non-compliance despite extension of time for six months granted vide order dated 25.04.2014 in Contempt Case (C) 338/2009.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

It is seen that the State has not responded to the application moreso. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the State respondent has delayed the payment of the admitted dues of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.42,261/- being arrear salary for the period from 01.07.2001 to 28.02.2002 without being able to show any justifiable cause, and there has been a delay on part of the State for non-compliance of order dated 11.09.2008 in WP(C) 6060/2003. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/- on (1) the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, and (2) the Officer of the Child Development Project Officer, Kapili ICDS Project, jointly and severely, as lump sum payment of interest for the delay of seven and half years in paying the arrear salary of the petitioner despite order dated 11.09.2008 passed in WP(C) 6060/2003. The lump sum interest is imposed for the period from 11.09.2008, being the date of the order in WP(C) 6060/2003 to 29.06.2015, the date of payment of the said amount.

¶28

Moreover, for compelling the petitioner to approach this Court for the third time, this Court is inclined to impose the cost of the litigation of Rs.20,000/- on (1) the State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department, (2) the Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam, and (3) the Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Kapili ICDS Project.

¶29

The said these authorities jointly and severely, are directed to pay the aforesaid cost to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, who is duty bound to transmit the photocopies thereof to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department and to the Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Kapili ICDS for joint compliance of payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the petitioner on two counts of interest and litigation cost.

¶30

It is made clear that if the aforesaid cost is not paid within the time allowed, the aforesaid amount would bear interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) from the date of the

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

order till the aforesaid cost on two grounds is actually paid to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to enforce the order of payment of cost as provided under the Gauhati High Court Rules.

¶33

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Panna Deb v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panna Deb v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

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

Himanjal Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Rokibul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mustt. Lailima Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Arabinda Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Padma Prasad Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Tapan Nath and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.