IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.566 of 2009 SUO MOTU CONTEMPT AGAINST V.C. & THE REG. OF LNMU Versus ----------- 5. 25/06/2010 Husband of petitioner Late Dr.Shankar Das, who was working as Reader in Marwari College, Darbhanga, died in harness on 22.8.2003. Petitioner has filed connected writ application (C.W.J.C.No.15682 of 2004) for a direction to the respondent University to fix her family pension on the basis of revised salary in U.G.C. Pay Scale of her husband. She has also prayed for payment of arrears of pension for the period August 2003 to March 2004, arrears of salary of her husband for the period 1.1.1986 to 22.8.2003 and the due amount of gratuity, G.I.C., Leave Encashment with statutory interest. This Court, in a batch of cases, including the connected writ application, passed a detailed order on 30.7.2008 giving certain directions to the respondent University for payment of dues of the petitioners. Cases were ordered to be listed again on 23.10.2008 to enable learned counsel for the University to report compliance of the said order. On 23.10.2008, learned counsel for - 2 - the University reported that the order has not been complied with in full and he prayed for some more time to comply with the same. Hence, the cases were ordered to be listed again on 18.11.2008 with an observation that if the order is not fully complied with, the court will consider initiating a proceeding of contempt against the officers of the University in each and every case in which non-compliance is found. On 18.11.2008 again learned counsel for the University prayed for further time to comply with the directions of this Court. However, the Court was not satisfied with the cause shown by the University and hence Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Universities were directed to show cause as to why proceeding of contempt be not initiated against them in each and every case. Show cause reply was ordered to be filed by 12.1.2009. On 12.1.2009 a common show cause was filed on behalf of the University. The Court, having found the said show cause unsatisfactory, rejected the same and initiated contempt proceeding against the Vice - 3 - Chancellor and the Registrar of the University fixing the next date as 24.2.2009. Show cause was directed to be filed by 19.2.2009 with service of copy of the same on learned counsel for the petitioners. On 24.2.2009 another common show cause was filed in all the cases of the batch with a prayer to exempt the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University from filing separate show cause in other cases. The said prayer was allowed and the cases were adjourned for 23.3.2009 Due to assignment of different subject matter, these cases could be listed only on 11.11.2009 and another show cause was filed on behalf of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. In the said show cause it was said that in some cases calculation was pending with the State appointed auditors since January, 2009. This Court observed that the order dated 30.7.2008 was in respect of all the authorities, who had any role to play in finalizing and clearing the dues of retired employees. Cases were adjourned for 3.12.2009. On 3.12.2009, a prayer was made by learned counsel for the - 4 - University for adjournment of the case on the ground that a new Vice Chancellor has joined recently. Accordingly, Cases were adjourned for 17.12.2009. On 17.12.2009 again a prayer was made for adjournment of the cases on the same ground. As a last indulgence, the said prayer was allowed and the cases were ordered to be listed on 13.1.2010. Petitioners were also directed to file their reply in their respective cases in the meanwhile. Batch of cases were again taken up on 27.1.2010. Learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the University were directed to complete their pleadings by 10th February, 2010 and cases were ordered to be listed on 11.2.2010. On 11.2.2010, parties completed their pleadings and were heard and order was reserved. This contempt proceeding was initiated as the University authorities could not satisfy this Court on the date fixed that the orders dated 30.7.2008 were complied with in letter and spirit. Pursuant to the show cause notice, respondents filed their show cause in writ matter. This Court by order dated 12.1.2009 passed in writ matter found that the - 5 - show cause contained only lame excuses for not complying with the orders of this Court. Almost six months have passed from the date this Court had issued specific directions to the respondents to pay all the admitted dues of the petitioner under different heads towards retirement benefits in the manner and procedure directed by this Court to achieve finality to the dispute and end litigation in this Court. The contents of the show cause clearly demonstrate that the respondents have not taken any step in right earnest to comply the directions of this Court. For convenience, specific directions of this Court passed on 30.7.2008 in the writ matter are reproduced here below :- “(a) Before the next date fixed in this batch of cases, they shall see to it that all admitted and lawful dues of the concerned employee of the University are calculated, settled and paid to him/her or his/her beneficiaries. (b) They shall see to it that all calculations are made as per the rates of entitlement, including that of the pay-scale admissible from time to time, of the employee concerned, as laid down in the relevant Act/ Statutes/ Rules/ Regulations/ Notifications etc. as applicable at the relevant time or as made applicable by judicial pronouncement or interpretations made in the matter. Any miscalculation, resulting into short or excess payment to the employee concerned or his beneficiary shall be treated as non- - 6 - compliance or wrong compliance of order of this Court and shall be viewed seriously. (c) Details of calculation under each head, with mention of relevant provision of law or judicial pronouncement, as the case may be, in the margin of the calculation, along with cheque/draft of the amount found payable (except where it is directly creditable in the account) shall be served on the employee or his/her beneficiary at his/her known place of residence, or shall be sent through insured registered post, if the entire family has shifted its residence out side the State. For this, address of the employee or his/her beneficiary shall be verified beforehand, if required. This exercise must be completed latest by two weeks prior to the next date fixed in this batch of cases. (d) In case, any specific claim raised by the petitioners in the respective writ petition is found not payable, a specific order in this regard shall be passed by the Vice Chancellor with reference to the specific provision of law or judicial pronouncement and shall be made available to the employee or his/her beneficiary along with the details of calculation and the cheque/draft as aforesaid. (e) Latest by one week prior to the date fixed in this batch of cases, the Head of the Institution concerned or the Registrar of the University, as the case may be, shall file a personal affidavit in each and every case, with copy served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, certifying that, to his personal satisfaction, entire lawful dues of the employee has been paid to the employee or his beneficiary and shall also enclose copies of the details of calculation and the cheque/draft as served/sent to the employee or his beneficiary in terms of (c) above, and shall also enclose copy of registration receipt, as the case may be . With the affidavit, a copy of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, if any, denying any - 7 - specific claim of the petitioner, and served upon the employee or his/her beneficiary in the manner indicated above, shall also be enclosed. (f) In case, any lawful amount of the concerned employee remains due to be paid to him or his beneficiary, and no order denying the claim is served upon the employee or his/her beneficiary in the manner indicated above, the Head of the Institution or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall disclose in his personal affidavit the name and details of the employee or officer due to whose lapses or due to whose fault the amount remained unpaid. In case the name and details of the employee/officer responsible for non-payment of any lawful amount of the employee concerned is not disclosed in such personal affidavit, the Head of the Institution concerned or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall be assumed to be personally responsible for the said lapse or default. (g) In case of outstanding arrears of salary on account of revision of pay- scale of teachers of the University w.e.f. 1.1.1996, and in case University finds itself unable to pay the same due to paucity of fund, it shall calculate the amount payable separately to each of the employee concerned of the present batch of cases and send a requisition to the State Govt. separately with all details of revision and fixation of pay- scale, with reference to relevant Act/ Statutes/Rules/Regulations/Notifications etc. as applicable at the relevant time or as made applicable or interpreted by judicial pronouncement made in the matter, with all details of the employee in the format prescribed by the State Govt. for the purpose, with original of the documents required by the State Government or explanation for non- furnishing of the same. The requisition must be received by the concerned authority of the State Government latest three weeks before the next date fixed in this batch of cases, and copies thereof, with copy of receiving must be - 8 - enclosed with the personal affidavit, as aforesaid. (h) State Government on receipt of such requisition in respect of individual employee, shall cause it to be examined, and upon being satisfied, shall release the necessary fund to the University specifically earmarked for payment to the concerned employee or his/her beneficiary as the case may be within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said requisition and shall inform the Court on the next date fixed in the batch of cases about the same. On receipt of the said fund, University shall make payment of the amount to the employee concerned or his/her beneficiary immediately with due intimation to the State Government and this Court. Any miscalculation, resulting into short or excess release of fund and payment thereof to the employee concerned or his/her beneficiary shall be treated as non-compliance or wrong compliance of order of this Court by the University authorities or the authorities of the State Government, as the case may be, and shall be viewed seriously. (i) Before filing of the aforesaid affidavits in respective cases, all concerned shall get satisfied, that specific and unambiguous pleading has been made in the affidavit showing full compliance of the directions of the Court as made above, and all necessary enclosures, as indicted above, are enclosed and all the heads of claims of the employee concerned are independently dealt with in separate paragraphs, so that any requirement of any further affidavit in the case may be ruled out, and the case may be in a position to be disposed of finally on the next date fixed.” Being not satisfied with the show cause, suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated in all such cases and opportunity - 9 - was granted to the contemnors to file their further show cause. Proceedings were thereafter adjourned from time to time on the request of learned counsel for the contemnors to enable the contemnors to file further show cause showing compliance of the orders. The show cause which has been filed in the contempt proceedings as also counter affidavits filed in the connected writ matter, after initiation of contempt proceedings, only mention about some ad hoc and further payments of dues of the petitioner. None of these affidavits and show cause show that the specific directions of this Court, as contained in its order dated 30.7.2008 have been complied with in true letter and spirit. Calculation charts which have been annexed with the said affidavits and show cause do not refer to the rules, regulations etc. in accordance with which the same has been calculated. This obviously leaves scope for the petitioner to raise dispute and also does not give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-check the said calculations in reference to the particular rules, regulations or statutes in accordance with which the same has - 10 - been calculated. There is no affidavit or show cause filed by the Registrar in the case with the statement on affidavit that on his personal satisfaction entire dues of the petitioner has been paid. Similarly, other directions issued by this Court as reproduced above also do not stand complied with by the contemnors. So far as this particular case is concerned, contemnors have filed their last show cause on 11.11.2009. Along with the show cause, some calculation chart of dues of the petitioner have been annexed as Annexure-C. In proof of payments, photo copies of cheques have also been annexed. This show that there has been some compliance of orders of this Court although not in true letter and spirit. However, since petitioner has not filed any reply to the show cause and has not disputed the calculation made therein, this Court does not find it appropriate to hold the contemnors guilty in this case. Therefore, this contempt proceeding is dropped and the contempt application is disposed of. - 11 - Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)