BIJAY KUMAR SINHA AND ORS. v. TRIPURARI SHARAN AND ORS.

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioners have come before this court claiming that the respondents have disregarded the directive.
2. The petitioners were appointed in various Corporations in the erstwhile State of Bihar much prior to 1996. A significant number of Treasury Department workers were suspended or fired in 1996 as a result of the fodder scam. The Department of Finance, Treasury and Accounts Directorate, Government of Bihar, directed several Corporations, including the one where the petitioners were employed, due to a shortage of employees in the Treasury Department dated August 24, 1996, requesting the dispatch of the workers who are being deputized. 
3. In pursuance to the directions dated 24th August 1996, issued by the State Government, the petitioners and other employees were relieved and joined the different treasuries in the erstwhile State of Bihar.  The State of Bihar was divided into the States of Jharkhand and Bihar on November 15, 2000.  As a result, the workers were divided between the two States.
4. Many of these workers who were employed by the State of Jharkhand filed a writ petition with the Jharkhand High Court, expressing their grievance that their employment with the Corporations was not taken into account for pensionary and retirement benefits.   By its order dated the 31st July, 2013 the Jharkhand High Court granted the employees’ victory.
5. The State of Jharkhand filed a civil appeal to appear before this court. By order dated September 7, 2017, this Court declined to intervene with the Jharkhand High Court’s order dated January 14, 2015, and mandated that the pension, retirement benefits, and arrears be computed with the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment taken into account within a six-month period.
6. Concurrently, a comparable group of workers assigned to the State of Bihar were also pursuing the remedy before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.   LPA No. 763 of 2017 allowed the proceedings to make their way to the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna.
7. The State of Bihar approached the Supreme Court after feeling wronged by Division Bench of the High Court of Patna’s decision.
8. Following the order’s passage, the State of Bihar published a Government Resolution on September 14, 2020, ostensibly in accordance with the order this Court had issued on March 4, 2020. The present petitioners filed Contempt Petition before the Supreme Court, claiming that the State of Bihar has not complied with the orders issued by this Court.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the judgement delivered by the Patna High court is appropriate?
2. Whether the State of Bihar provided the required benefit to each of the appellant?

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

1. The learned counsel of petitioners Smt. Meenakshi Arora argued that, the State of Bihar was instructed to provide benefits to all of the appellants by calculating the services they provided to the Boards, Corporations, and Public Sector Undertakings before being absorbed. Additionally, the pensionary benefits were to be awarded to the appellants after the Boards or Corporations tallied their service. 
2. The learned counsel argued, within six months of the date of the aforementioned order, the Court had mandated that all benefits specified therein be paid.

ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDENT

1. The learned counsel of the respondents Sh. Ranjit Kumar argued that, In so far as the Government Resolution dated September 14, 2020, directly implements the directives issued by this Court, and the respondent State of Bihar has, in fact, complied with the orders issued by this Court via order dated February 15, 2021.
2. He added that it would demonstrate that this Court has, for the first time, we give the State of Bihar an additional three months to fulfill its obligations, which include paying all of these workers the same amount that the State of Jharkhand paid to the workers who were the subject of this order.
3. He argued that the order issued by this court does not contain such an observation, and he dismissed the appeals that the State of Bihar had filed.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that, based on initial observations, we conclude that the disregard for the orders given by this Court on March 2020 and February 15, 2021, is intentional and wilful, and constitutes contempt of court.

As a result, the court order the respondent defendants to appear in person before this court on February 22, 2022, to explain why they shouldn’t be found guilty of contempt of court and instead receive the appropriate punishment.

 It goes without saying that following the instructions will affect the potential punishment the respondent suspects face in the interim. This order governs the disposition of all pending I.A.s.

REFERENCES

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/13110/13110_2021_35_1503_32740_Judgement_18-Jan-2022.pdf 
2.  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/bijay-kumar-sinha-ors-vs-tripurari-sharan-ors-407833.pdf

THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY MANVI VERMA OF THE LAW SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU AN INTERN AT LEGAL VIDHIYA. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin