Satyabadi Maharana (Retd.) vs Rajesh Bhushan & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant while working on temporary basis as Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f. 31.03.1982 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack under Human Reproduction Research Centre (ICRM), superannuated on 30.04.2022 without being regularized. Another similarly situated employee approached before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1332/2000 praying for his regularization, which was allowed and upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 18536-18538 on 31.07.2014. Hence, by filing representation, the applicant prayed for his regularization. Since, no action was taken by the respondents department, approached this Bench in OA No. 25/2020. Another similar OA No. 26/2020 was also filed by another person before this Bench. This Bench vide common order dated 13.04.2023 disposed of both the OAs with direction to the respondents as under:

It is stated that since the order of this Bench was not complied with, the applicant has filed this CP. It is stated that the respondents filed their reply stating inter alia that upon regularization of the service of the applicant, he has been paid all arrear salaries, pension and pensionary benefits, which is not correct because as per the CPF Rules, the office contribution and the office bank interest comes to Rs. 6,29,191/- whereas, retirement gratuity sanctioned was Rs.14,17,251/-, hence, after deduction of contribution and bank interest from the total retirement gratuity sanctioned comes to Rs. 7,65,510/- and, therefore, the applicant is to get the said amount of Rs. 7,65,510/-, whereas he has been paid Rs. 22,600/- towards DCRG. Hence, according to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the alleged contemnors are liable to be punished under Contempt of Court Acts and Rules made thereunder.

Since, regularization and payment of pension and pensionary dues stated in the reply has not been disputed by the applicant, Ld. Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors clarified insofar as the amount deducted and paid to the applicant towards DCRG by stating that the DCRG of Rs.14,17,251/- was sanctioned to him from which employer share towards CPF with interest was deducted and remaining amount of Rs. 22,600/- was paid to him vide PFMS transaction Id. C072536817483. The CPF amount was calculated on the basis of CPF Register provided by the applicant taking into account the yardsticks provided under the rules. On scrutiny of the revised CPF calculation sheet furnished by the applicant, it was noticed that he did not mention about the amount withdrawn by him from time to time. He simply divided the bank interest in equal parts whereas it should be divided proportionately on the total employer and employee share in that particular month. He withdrew the whole amount and closed the bank account in May 2022. Nothing is mentioned about the yearly interest on the amount since then. Hence, there was no illegality in the matter of payment of the DCRG amount after making necessary deductions. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the alleged contemnors prayed for dropping of this CP.

Heard. After considering the submissions of the parties, perused the records. It is significant to note that the direction of this Bench in the OA was to regularize the services of the applicant retrospectively from the date when other similarly situated persons were regularized keeping in view the order passed by the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1332/2000 dated 4.12.2001 upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP(C) No. 25514/2002 and by the Apex Court in SLP No. 18536-18538. The pay of the applicant was directed to fixed notionally and accordingly to grant pension with effect from the date of retirement. Admittedly, the direction of this Bench has been complied with is not in dispute. The contempt power can be invoked only if it is established that there was a willful disobedience. Even while exercising the power of contempt, the Court/Tribunal has to restrict the scope of its enquiry to the directions which are explicitly specified in the judgment/order. Also, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment. The contempt jurisdiction is meant to secure compliance with court orders and not to grant fresh or additional reliefs. Suffice it is to quote the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of V.M.Manohar Prasad Vs N.Ratnam Raju & Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 610, and Snehasis Giri & Ors Vs Subhasis Mitra, (2023) 18 SCC 529, to the proposition noted above. Since, the regularization and release of the consequence benefits to the extent admissible to the applicant are not in dispute, this Bench do not find any such ground to proceed in this CP on the allegation that the deduction made from his DCRG amount was in any manner not correct.

This CP is accordingly, dropped. Notices are discharged. Parties to bear their own costs.