B.K.SINHA Vs. RADHIKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th April, 2001, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contempt application filed by the respondent, had issued a direction to the appellants to release the entire retiral dues of the deceased - husband of the respondent within seven days from the date of passing of the aforesaid order.

(2.) IT is worth recalling that the contempt application in question (MJC No. 593/ 1999R), from out of which the aforesaid order dated 10th April, 2001 has arisen, was filed by the respondent, Radhika Devi, because, according to her. the original Judgment of this Court passed on 20.1.1998 in the writ petition being CWJC No. 1328/1997R was not complied with. The deceased husband of the respondent being an employee of the Corporation had filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court seeking the relief of payment of certain outstanding dues and during the pendency of the writ petition, he having died the respondent Radhika Devi, the widow, was substituted. The writ petition was allowed and vide judgment dated 20.1.1998, the writ Court had issued a mandamus directing the appellants to pay certain amounts to the petitioner -respondent.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY and undoubtedly the appellants did not challenge the main judgment dated 20.1.1998 passed in CWJC No. 1328/ 97R. Undoubtedly also, the appellants did not file any appeal against the order dated 5.8.1999 passed in the first contempt proceedings. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has drawn our attention to an order dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Supreme Court in I.A. Nos. 9 -10 in Civil Appeal No. 7290/1994 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made certain observations with regard to the monitoring of the entire scheme by the Supreme Court in relation to the re -organization of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In that order, their Lordships have observed that any order passed for withholding t he salary of the Administrator has to be stayed. Mr. Roy has informed us very frankly and fairly that the operation of the impugned order dated 10.4.2001, in so far as it related to the stay of the drawing of salary of the Administrator has now been recalled by the learned Single Judge himself. However, Mr. Roy seeks reliance upon the aforesaid Supreme Court order to buttress his submission that in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid Supreme Court order and the directions contained therein, the appellants are not liable to pay any amount to the respondent -writ petitioner on the basis of the original judgment obtained by her on 20.1.1998 in CWJC No. 1328/1997R and despite the subsequent directions issued by the High Court in the first contempt proceedings, being order dated 5.8.1999 passed in MJC No. 18/99R. Mr. Roys contention is that in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court order the appellants are not at all under any obligation to pay any amount to the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid two orders passed by this Court, but that the payment shall be made only the basis of the scheme and on the fund being provided by the State Government.