Bijay Kumar Sinha vs Tripurari Sharan

Bijay Kumar Sinha vs Tripurari Sharan - Supreme Court Case 2022

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION 
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) ……………../2022
DIARY NO.13110 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) ……………../2022
DIARY NO.21402 OF 2021
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5846 OF 2020
BIJAY KUMAR SINHA AND OTHERS       ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
TRIPURARI SHARAN AND OTHERS      ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.345 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.652 OF 2020
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5844 OF 2020
WITH
MA NO. 875 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.651 OF 2020
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5843 OF 2020
1
O R D E R
1. The petitioners have approached this Court contending
that the respondents have committed contempt of the order
dated 15th February 2021 passed by this Court.
2. The present proceedings have a chequered history.  The
petitioners were appointed in various Corporations in the
erstwhile State of Bihar much prior to 1996.   In the year
1996,   the   fodder   scam   resulted   in   a   large   number   of
employees working in the Treasury Department either being
dismissed   or   suspended.   On   account   of   shortfall   of   the
employees in the Treasury Department, several Corporations
including the one, wherein the petitioners were employed,
were directed by the Department of Finance, Treasury and
Accounts Directorate, Government of Bihar vide its letter No.
447 dated 24th  August 1996, to send the services of  the
employees   on   deputation.   In   pursuance   to   the   directions
dated 24th August 1996, issued by the State Government, the
2
petitioners and other employees were relieved and joined the
different treasuries in the erstwhile State of Bihar.  On 15th
November 2000, the State of Bihar was bifurcated into the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand.  The employees
were accordingly apportioned amongst the two States.
3. Various   such   employees   employed   with   the   State   of
Jharkhand had approached the Jharkhand High Court by
filing writ petition being WP(S) No.1693 of 2012, with the
grievance   that   the   services   of   such   employees   with   the
Corporations   were   not   considered   for   the   purpose   of
pensionary and retiral benefits.   The employees succeeded
before the Jharkhand High Court vide its order dated 31st
July 2013.   The LPA No. 357 of 2013 filed by the State of
Jharkhand  before the Division Bench was also  dismissed
vide order dated 14th January 2015.  The State of Jharkhand
came up before this Court by filing Civil Appeal No.13372 of
2015.   This Court, vide order dated 7th  September 2017,
refused to interfere with the order of the Jharkhand High
Court dated 14th January 2015 and directed that the pension
and retiral benefits as also the arrears shall be calculated
3
giving the benefit of the judgment of the Jharkhand High
Court within a period of 6 months.
4. Simultaneously, a similar set of employees who were
apportioned to the State of Bihar, were also pursuing the
remedy before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.   The
proceedings reached the Division Bench of the High Court of
Patna by way of LPA No. 763 of 2017.  The Division Bench of
the High Court of Patna passed the following order on 12th
December 2017: 
“5.  From the aforesaid legal principles laid down by
the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court,   it   is   clear   that   the
employees   identically   situated   like   the   appellants
herein, who were working in various Public Sector
undertakings,   Boards   and   Corporations   in   the
undivided   State   of   Bihar   and   whose   cases   were
decided by the High Court of Jharkhand, have been
granted benefit and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that they are entitled to count their service prior to
their absorption for the purpose of retiral benefits
and grant all pensionary benefits. 
6. That being the position, we see no reason to deny
the   same   benefit   to   these   appellants,   who   are
identically situated, like the other, who are allocated
to State of Jharkhand after re­organization of the
State of Bihar in the year 2000. 
7.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   we   allow   all   these
appeals, quash the order dated 29.03.2017 passed
by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7702 of 2010 and
other analogous cases and direct the State of Bihar
4
to grant benefit to each of the appellants herein by
counting   services   as   rendered   by   them   in   the
Boards,   Corporations   and   Public   Sector
Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant
them   the   pensionary   benefit   after   counting   such
service in the Boards or Corporations. 
8. That apart, we may observe that this order shall
be made applicable to all such employees, who are
working in the State of Bihar. Regardless to the fact
as to whether they have filed writ application or not,
as per the Litigation Policy of the State of Bihar, this
order   shall   be   implemented,   in   the   case   of   all
identically   situated   employees,   who   claim   the
benefit by the State Government. 
9. The benefits accrued to the appellants by virtue
of this order be granted within a period of three
months from today.”
5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench
of the High Court of Patna, the State of Bihar approached
this Court by filing SLP(C) D. No.15567 of 2018.  This Court
vide its order dated 4th March 2020, while dismissing the SLP
filed by the State of Bihar, observed thus: 
“We  have   also   been   informed   that   from   the
judgment dated 07.09.2017, a review petition was
dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2018 in which
substantially the same grounds as are taken by the
State today were taken by the State of Jharkhand
after which the review petition was rejected. 
In the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Special Leave Petitions need to be dismissed. 
Considering   that   the   respondents   have   not
been paid anything, the State of Bihar to implement
5
the   impugned   LPA   judgment  and   to   see  that   all
benefits mentioned therein are paid within a period
of six months from today. 
Pending applications stand disposed of.”
6. After   the  said   order   was   passed,   the  State   of   Bihar
issued a Government Resolution dated 14th September 2020
in purported compliance of the order passed by this Court
dated 4th March 2020. Contending that the State of Bihar has
not complied with the directions issued by this Court, the
present petitioners filed a contempt petition being Contempt
Petition (C) Diary No. 21402 of 2020 before this Court.  This
Court   passed   the   following   order   in   the   said   contempt
petition on 15th February 2021: 
“We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing
for the State of Bihar. 
The learned counsel for the State of Bihar has
taken   us   through   the   Finance   Department
Resolution dated 14.09.2020 in meticulous detail.
We   may   only   indicate   that   our   Judgment   dated
04.03.2020   has   made   it   clear   that   "the   State   of
Bihar is to implement the aforesaid impugned LPA
Judgment   and   to   see   that   all   benefits   mentioned
therein are paid within six weeks". This has still not
been done. 
We   grant   the   State   of   Bihar   another   three
months in order to do the needful, i.e. to pay to all
these employees exactly what was paid by the State
of Jharkhand to the employees who were covered by
6
this order. This must be done without any further
excuses within the period aforementioned. 
In view of above, the contempt petitions are
disposed of. 
Pending   interlocutory   application(s),   if   any,
is/are disposed of.”
7. Thereafter,   the   respondents   had   also   filed   an
application for extension of the period for compliance of the
orders passed by this Court dated 4th March 2020 and 15th
February 2021. One month was granted by this Court vide
its   order   dated   29th  June   2021   as   a   last   opportunity   to
comply with the directions passed by it vide its earlier orders.
8. The petitioners have now approached this Court by the
present contempt petition contending that the respondents
have committed contempt of this Court inasmuch as they
have failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court
dated 4th March 2020 and 15th February 2021.
9. We have heard Smt. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   and   Shri
Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent­State of Bihar.
7
10. Shri Ranjit Kumar submitted that as a matter of fact,
the   respondent­State   of   Bihar   has   complied   with   the
directions   issued   by   this   Court   vide   order   dated   15th
February   2021,   inasmuch   as   the   Government   Resolution
dated   14th  September   2020   squarely   implements   the
directions issued by this Court.  He further submitted that it
would reveal that this Court, for the first time, has observed
“We grant the State of Bihar another three months to do the
needful, i.e. to pay to all these employees exactly what was
paid by the State of Jharkhand to the employees who were
covered   by   this   order”.   He   submitted   that   such   an
observation is not there in the order passed by this Court
dated 4th  March 2020 while dismissing the appeals filed by
the State of Bihar.
11. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by
Shri Ranjit Kumar.  In the order dated 4th March 2020, this
Court has reproduced, in extenso, the directions issued by
the High Court of Patna in its order dated 12th  December
2017.  The said order of the High Court of Patna is very clear.
It was directed to State of Bihar to grant benefits to each of
8
the appellants therein by counting services as rendered by
them   in   the   Boards,   Corporations   and   Public   Sector
Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the
pensionary benefits after counting such service in the Boards
or Corporations.   In the said order dated 04th  March 2020,
this Court has also noticed that the review petition filed by
the State of Jharkhand being Review Petition (Civil) No. 459
of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 13372 of 2015 arising from the
order dated 7th September 2017 was also dismissed by this
Court vide its order dated 6th  March 2018.   Vide the said
order dated 7th September 2017, this Court had directed that
all the benefits mentioned therein to be paid within a period
of six months from the date of the said order.
12. The   perusal   of   the   order   dated   15th  February   2021
would also reveal that the contention which is raised with
regard to compliance in view of the Government Resolution
dated 14th  September 2020, was considered by this Court
and this Court did not find favour with the same.  Though, it
was not necessary, we had clarified that the directions meant
payment to all the employees exactly what was paid by the
9
State of Jharkhand to the employees who were covered by
the said order.
13. From the perusal of the orders passed by the Division
Bench   of  the  High  Court  of  Patna  as  well  as  the  orders
passed by this Court, it is clear that the State of Bihar was
required to give benefit to each of the appellants by counting
services as rendered by them in the Boards, Corporations
and Public Sector Undertakings prior to their absorption and
to grant them the pensionary benefits after counting such
service in the Boards or Corporations.  The contention with
regard to compliance through Government Resolution dated
14th September 2020 has also been rejected by this Court in
its order dated 15th February 2021.  It is further to be noted
that the State of Bihar itself had filed I.A. No. 62610 of 2021
for extension of period to comply with the directions issued
by this Court dated 4th March 2020 and 15th February 2021.
One month’s time was granted by this Court by order dated
29th June 2021.
14. In that view of the matter, we, prima facie, find that the
non­compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated
10
4
th  March   2020   and   15th  February   2021,   is   wilful   and
deliberate and amounts to contempt of this Court.
15. We   therefore   direct   the   respondent­contemnors   to
remain present before this Court on 22nd February 2022 and
show cause as to why they should not be held guilty for
having committed contempt of this Court and be punished in
accordance with law.
16. Needless to state that compliance of the directions, in
the meantime, will have a bearing on the punishment that
may be inflicted upon the respondent­contemnors.
17. All pending I.A.s are disposed of in terms of this order. 
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…....….......................J.
      [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 18, 2022.
11

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर