TRIPURA GOVT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION Vs. SASHI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under R. 6, Chapter 10 of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for review of the order dated 14-12-1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Case No. 17 of 1999 whereby the contempt petition was dropped and closed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, namely, the Government Pensioners' Association, Tripura has preferred this petition on a number of grounds controverting the manner in which the matter was disposed of. In this review petition, the petitioner-Association has prayed for fresh hearing of the entire contempt petition on merit.

(2.) The petitioner-Association filed Writ Petition No. C. R. 259/95 claiming dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners. The said petition has preferred in view of insertion of R. 55-A in the CCS (Pension) Rules which made the pensioners of the State Government eligible for dearness relief at the Central rate. The said petition was disposed of on 22-4-1997 with a direction to the State Government to pay pension reliefs to the pensioners at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners by eliminating the gap of 42%. The State Government challenged the said order in Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1997. The said appeal was dismissed as not being pressed as because the learned Advocate General prayed for extension of time for payment of the arrears. The disposal of the appeal on 26-6-1997 set at rest the controversy relating to petitioners' entitlement. The State Government also paid part of the arrears to the pensioners. Since the balance arrears was not paid and the amount payable from month to month was withheld, the contempt petition No. COP (C) 32 of 1997 was filed against the Scretary, Finance and Joint Secretary, Finance to the Government of Tripura. The said petition was also disposed of on 4-11-1998 with extension of time for six months to comply with the orders of the Court. This order was passed in view of the explanation submitted by the respondents that they had entertained incorrect interpretation of the direction given by the Court. Since no payment was made within the extended period of six months, the contempt petition No. 17 of 1999 was filed. The respondents appeared and pleaded that the Pensioner's Rules have been amended by the State Government by the notification dated 27-10-1998 with retrospective effect and, hence, the order of the Court could not be complied with since the amendment was carried out in exercise of powers under Art. 309 of the Constitution. The case was thereafter listed on several dates and on 15-11-1999 it was directed to be listed on a date after 15-12-1999. But on a mention by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Court by the order dated 10-12-1999 preponed the date of hearing and fixed it as a first item on 13-12-1999. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association not being prepared prayed for a short adjournment, but the said prayer was rejected. The learned counsel had to argue the case being unprepared and referred to three reported cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also prayed for further chance to complete his argument on the next day i.e. 14-12-1999. Accordingly, the case was listed on 14-12-1999 at 1.30 p.m. in the chamber of the learned single Judge. Despite objection and without further hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association, the contempt petition was dropped. The written submission along with an affidavit submitted by them was not entertained as the judgment and order was ready for pronouncement.

(3.) Affidavit-in-opposition to the prayer for review have been filed by the respondents. It has been pleaded that contempt being a matter between the Court and the contemner, the applicant cannot have any reason of being aggrieved specially when the Court was satisfied that there was no contemptuous violation of the order of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining a petition for review has also been questioned. The other allegations made in the review petition have also been denied by them.