7r • -.' ^xii IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION N0. !£S / 2008 ,<.H. N». PWS'SN *'{ tw "^ PETITIONER : Kunjan'Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Muniji'Dewangan, aged about 61 years, R/o Kilaward, Dewang&n Mohalla, Juna Bilaspur District BUapsur (C.G.) Shri Anfip Kumar Agrawal ChiefExecutive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maiyadit, Bilapsur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^' APPLICATION U/S 12^0F THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215t)F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Tf^'iY RESPONDENT ^ A_1'3-£*1*^-CE—c\i: ^_3 -I ^i /^/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVA. J. Contempt Petition No. 153 of 2008 PETITIONBR Kunjan Lal Dewangan RESPONDENT Versus Shri Anup Kumar Agrawal AopUcation u/S 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.P. Pathak, counsel for the respondent. ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on 28.02.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been flled aUeging that the order dated 19a Febmaiy, 2008 passed by the Court in W.P. No.2036/04 has been willfuUy disobeyed and is not being complied with. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a petition filed by fhe petitioner, tn the matter of non-release of retiral benefits, on 19th Febn-iary, 2008, on behalf of fhe respondent-Co- operative Bank, a statement was made fhat the petitioner has been intbrmed by letter dated 19.12.2007 to produce "No Dues Certt&cate" from the concemed authorities, fhereafter, the ..'c'^^^S^ ^s.. '''ts%-., ''a, y/'i •~".-. '% e? ^. ..^^^ T u '•Qfa'y^ g,8 -2- •A ^y '\ ? D petitioner would be granted retiral benefits, as per law and it was also stated that the payment thereof shall be made wifhin a period of one week from the date of production of "No Due CerttBcate". In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for respondent-Bank, the petition was flnally disposed of. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat al'ter the order was passed by this Coiirt, fhough, "No Dues CerttBcate" were submitted before fhe aufhority, only a part of payment has been released and fuU payment of aU retiral dues, which are payable to the petitioner under the law, has not been made. According to (he petitioner, as stated by him in his rejoinder, flled on 6.7.2008, an amount ofRs.65,565/- towards balance amonnt under the head of salary, has not been pald. It is also suhmitted fhat respondents have not calculated increments from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.2007 and under this head, a sum of Rs.71,591/- is payable. Accordir^ to fhe petitioner, respondent earlier deducted an amount of Rs.6,000/- froni his salary due to loss caused by salesnien, though, it was salesman who was responsible and the petitioner is entitled to fhis amount also. Further an amount ofRs.77,480/- towards leave encashiaent has also not been paid. An amount of Rs.8,000/- under Group Insiirance Scheme remains to be paid. It is also submitted that linally, the ajmtount of gratuity which was pald is based on computation applying old rates. 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that after the order was passed by the Court, the petltioner ought '^ 3 -3- to have submitted "No Dues Certificates" in respect of the period of service in all the branches. On 29.3.2008 the petitioner submitted an affidavit, but made wrong statement that he obtained and submitted "No Dues Certlficates" from all fhe branches. When the petitioner was informed that the statement was wrong and he should coUect "No Dues Certfflcates" from all the branches, petitioner preferred contempt petition. It is further submitted that on the basis of "No Dues Certificates" submitted on 22.2.2008, balance amount of salary of Rs.1,26,974/- was paid through a bank draft dated 4.3.2008. Thereafter, when "No Dues Certtficates" were received from Pendra Raod & Masturi on 11th & 12th June respectively, the petitioner was given a letter on 13.6.2008 to go to the Bank and collect his dues. Referring to further affidavit ffled by the respondent, it has been averred that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 1,66,987/- on 24.6.2008 towards the gratuity payable to him. 6. From fhe submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe parties and the pleadings and documents on record, I tlnd that fhe writ petition filed by the petitioner was earller disposed of recording statement of counsel for the respondent-Bank fhat upon submission of "No Dues Certificates" fhe petitioner woiild be granted retiral benefits as per law. Now the respondent has paid a substantial amount to the petitioner. Various communications have also been placed on record. Therefore, it appears that there -4- ^ - •-( is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent wlth regard to the amount which is payable to the petitioner. 7. In the opmion of this Court, tn fhe conteiapt proceedtngs, fhat dispute cannot be adjudicated upon. Vide order dated 19th February, 2008, writ petition was disposed of on statement made. Wliat aniount is actuaUy payable to fhe petitioner iinder various heads mcludtng retiral dues was not decided. It the petitioner has any grievance fhat he has not been paid fhe entire amoi-uit, proper remedy for the petitioner would be to seek adjudicatlon by filing a petition. 8. In the result, I am. not incllned to proceed further in the inatter and the rule is fherefore discharged. 9. The petition is accordingly fmally disposed o£ ^obaa ^a&wul"judfee sdi«Sbt^astava Praveen