M. Nagarajan vs Dhanushkodi Ramalingam

S.M. Subramaniam, J

The contempt petitions are filed to punish the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court with regard to disbursement of retirement benefits to the petitioners herein.

At the outset, it would be useful to refer Paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the order dated 27.10.2015, passed in W.P.(MD) No.19024 of 2015 etc., batch,, which are extracted hereunder:

"4. Today, the Managing Director, representing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Madurai, Kumbakonam and Tirunelveli Divisions, appeared before this Court and submitted that there are 2600, 1955 and 1054 retirees waiting in a queue for disbursement of the retirement benefits from Madurai, Kumbakonam and Tirunelveli respectively.

However, the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has already passed a consent order dated 12.06.2015 for early disbursement of retirement benefits through 12 equal monthly installments carrying interest at the rate of 6% and the said order has been scrupulously followed. Now, the Transport Corporation is facing financial problem and they also made a request to the Government to sanction adequate funds to meet the present deficit and the fund is likely to be sanctioned in the month of December 2015.

After the receipt of sufficient fund from the Government, the respondent Corporation would be iin a position to solve the problem being faced by the retirees. Till such time, the respondent Corporation would disburse the retirement benefits of retirees through 12 equal monthly installments along with interest for all the retirees, who approached this Court and got an order.

Secondly, the persons who are not approaching this Court are placed in seniority list and on the basis of the seniority list, their retirement benefits would be disbursed. However, if the fund is received from the Government, the issue would be finally resolved once and for all. the above submissions are placed on record.

Taking note of the fact that the consent order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court and in view of the practical problem faced by the Transport Corporation, this Court on being satisfied with the approach adopted by the respondent Corporation hereby directs the respondent Corporation to strictly follow the consent order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 12.06.2015 not only to the retirees who have approached this Court for early disbursement of retirement benefits but also to the persons who are waiting in a que for a long time and not approached this Court such relief."

The above order passed by this Court states that large number of retirees are waiting for disbursement of retirement benefits from the respondent / Transport Corporations. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court considered the issues and directed the Transport Corporations to disburse the retirement benefits in twelve equal monthly installments carrying interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The said order has been followed by the Transport Corporation concerned.

The respondent / Transport Corporations pleaded financial crisis across the State of Tamil Nadu. Special allotment of funds was made by the Government of Tamil Nadu to settle the terminal benefits of these employees. On account of certain peculiar circumstances and the financial crisis in the Transport Corporations, there was a delay in settling the terminal benefits to these employees.

The Honourable Supreme Court of India in many number of cases held that financial crisis of the State or it's Corporations is also to be taken into consideration before granting the relief for settling the financial benefits to the employees as well as to the other persons. If the Corporations are not having adequate funds to settle the terminal benefits to the retirees immediately, then, the Courts should consider the same and grant time for settlement of the terminal benefits.

Admittedly, the Transport Corporations across the State of Tamil Nadu are facing huge financial crisis and there are large number of claims, including payment of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, other establishment commitments and payment of terminal benefits to the employees etc., which all are to be settled by the Transport Corporations.

Under these circumstances, this Court passed orders directing the respondent / Transport Corporations to settle the terminal benefits to the contempt petitioners in twelve equal monthly installments as per the orders of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, dated 12.06.2015.

The learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioners made a submission that the wages, as applicable with reference to the revised pay, have not been properly calculated by the respondents. The interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as applicable, has also not been properly calculated and this apart, the learned counsel for the contempt petitioners states that even in the counter affidavit, the calculation sheet is not provided to the contempt petitioners.

This Court is of the considered opinion that correctness of fixation of pay cannot be adjudicated in the contempt petitions. There is no such directions by this Court in the orders passed in the writ petitions. In the absence of any specific order in respect of correctness of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay, this Court cannot go into the merits of such contentions and punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The scope of contempt petitions is limited and it must be strictly in accordance with the orders / judgments delivered by the Court. In the contempt jurisdiction, the Courts cannot travel beyond the scope of the orders already passed. This being the scope of the contempt jurisdiction, the contentions of the contempt petitioners that the revised pay, as per the settlement, has not been calculated along with interest cannot be considered. If at all the contempt petitioners are aggrieved from and out of such erroneous revision of pay or non-payment of the entire interest amount, they are at liberty to adjudicate the same in the manner known to law. Contrarily, on this pretext, the respondents cannot be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The calculations are made by the respondents as per the service record of the contempt petitioners and as per the Government Orders in force in this regard. Calculations are made by the establishment section of the respondent - Transport Corporations and accordingly, payments were made.

The learned counsel for the contempt petitioners also admits the fact that the terminal benefits were paid. However, he is of the opinion that it was erroneously calculated and lesser amount has been paid. Such a claim now set out in the contempt petitions can be neither adjudicated nor considered for the purpose of granting further direction to the respondents or to punish them in the present contempt petitions.

The scope of orders passed in the writ petitioners is to settle the terminal benefits in twelve equal monthly installments as per the directions given by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court on 12.06.2015. Thus, the respondents are allowed to calculate the terminal benefits as per the individual service records and their eligibility and accordingly, disburse the terminal benefits. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the terminal benefits due to all the contempt petitioners were disbursed with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claim of the contempt petitioners for erroneous calculation or lesser payment are to be adjudicated in the manner known to law and in the contempt petitions, they cannot adjudicate the the dispute with regard to calculation or the manner in which the respondents calculated the terminal benefits for the purpose of settling the same with reference to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions.

The counter affidavit filed by the respondents categorically states that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the terminal benefits to the contempt petitioners had been settled along with 6% interest per annum. This being the factual position placed, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondents have not committed any act warranting punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Accordingly, all these contempt petitions are closed. No costs.