Heard Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel…
Contempt proceeding dropped; Petitioner directed to approach the authority concerned regarding the disputed deduction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CONTC No. 307 of 2009
23 01.05.2019 Heard Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Kar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.
The petitioner has filed this application alleging noncompliance of order dated 22.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11242 of 2004, by which this Court directed the opposite parties to calculate the entire financial dues payable to the petitioner who is a retired employee and a senior citizen and disburse the same to him within four months from the date of communication of that judgment, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to interest on his dues at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of his entitlement.
Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite parties filed their show cause reply, where they have calculated an amount of Rs.1,13,958.00 to be payable to the petitioner but they have deducted a sum of Rs.47,612.66 from the calculated amount and after deducting such amount, the balance amount has been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that the opposite parties are not entitled to deduct Rs.47,612.66 in compliance of order passed by the Member, Co-operative Tribunal in Annexure-3. Therefore, the same amount be refunded to the petitioner along with interest of 9% as directed by this Court.
Mr. P.C. Kar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 states that admittedly the dues of the petitioner has been calculated at Rs.1,13,958.00. The petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.47,612.66 to the opposite parties. After deducing
the said amount the balance amount has already been paid to the petitioner. If by virtue of the order dated 16.12.1994 passed in Annexure-3, the amount of Rs.47,612.66 should not be deductable, then the same can be disbursed by following due procedure of law.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the order of this Court has been complied. So far as the disputed amount of Rs.47,612.66 is concerned, the petitioner may approach the authority concerned by providing necessary information stating that he is not liable to pay the above amount in view of the order passed by the Member, Co-operative Tribunal dated 16.12.1994 in Annexure-3 so that the authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
.….……………………
Ajaya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite parties complied with an earlier court order discharging financial dues to a retired employee.
Whether a specific deduction claimed by the opposite parties should be refunded or paid again.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No. 1
Ajaya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
