Disposed

Rama Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2024Cont.(Cvl)/303/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ order on payment of retirement benefits to a bank employee. Opposite parties showed payments of gratuity, pension arrears, cost and leave encashment; the court found substantial compliance and dropped the contempt, directing furnishing of calculation details and leaving further recourse open.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; Zonal Manager directed to provide calculation details within three weeks; petitioner at liberty to pursue further claims under law.

Rama Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 303 of 2021

---

Rama Shankar Singh

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Shri Matam Venkata Rao, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

¶10

Shri Alok Srivastava, Executive Director, Central Bank of India,

¶11

Mumbai (Maharashtra)

¶12

Shri Vipin Kumar Mahendru, General Manager, Central Bank of India, having Zonal Office at New Delhi

¶13

Shri Parshuram Panda, Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Bank of

¶14

India, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

¶15

Shri B.S. Hari Lal, Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India having Zonal Office at Patna

¶16

Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, having Regional Office at Ranchi

¶17

…. … Opp. Parties

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate & M/s. Neha Bhardwaj, Ankita & Piyush Roy,Advocates For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate

¶20

Order No. 20 Dated: 22.01.2024

¶21

The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties alleging willful violation of order dated 15.12.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7540 of 2012.

¶22

2. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7, refers to show cause affidavit dated 05.10.2023 filed on behalf of the said opposite parties, paragraph- 9 of which reads as under:

¶23

“9. That the answering opposite parties state that the order of the Hon’ble Court has been complied with and all the consequential monetary benefits have been paid to the petitioner. The details of the payment made so far are as below:

¶24

”(A) As per the Regulations of the Bank, the Gratuity payable is Rs.7,17,542/- whereas as the calculation under the Gratuity Act, the payable amount comes to Rs.10.00 Lacs. As such, the higher of the two has

¶25

¶26

been paid to the petitioner i.e., Rs.10.00 Lacs. Rs.3,81,596/has been paid on 28.02.2007. Rs.6,18,404 has been credited on 28.09.2023. (B) Arrears of pension payable from 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2023 is Rs.64,10,960/-. Commutation amount is Rs.5,21,659/-. Arrears of pension already paid including commutation for Rs.1,94,074/- paid in December 2020 is Rs.38,99,195/- Difference of Pension-28,39,350/inclusive of commutation difference for Rs.3,27,585/- (subject to TDS). After deduction of TDS on arrears of pension, net pension arrears is Rs.22,39,090/- which has been credited on 28.09.2023.

¶27

(C) The cost of Rs.5,000/- has also been credited in the account of the petitioner on 30.09.2023.

¶28

(D) Rs.2,52,668/- has been deposited in the account of petitioner on 21.09.2023 towards the amount of leave encashment.

¶29

(E) Apart from this, the current pension is being paid to the petitioner.”

¶30

3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that calculation details of the aforesaid amount paid under different heads have not been furnished to the petitioner. The respondents have also not stated as to whether pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the rest service period of the petitioner has been counted for calculation of the said amount.

¶31

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the order dated order dated 15.12.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7540 of 2012 has substantially been complied by the opposite parties, I see no reason to further proceed in the present contempt matter.

¶32

5. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

¶33

6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

¶35

7. However, the opposite party no. 6 is directed to give the details of calculation of the amount paid to the petitioner as stated in paragraph-9 of the show cause affidavit, within three weeks from the date of this order.

¶36

8. If the petitioner feels that any further amount is payable to him, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse in that regard as permissible under law.

¶37

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶38

Ritesh/

Rama Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Additional Director General of Police

Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyamali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd. through One of Its Directors Sri Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Equbal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Education