Patna High Court
Sri Devendra Prasad SinghversusSyalin Abbasi, the Chairman and Managing Director
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
No contempt lies against the opposite parties; the contempt petition is dismissed.
Summary
The heirs of the deceased employee filed a contempt petition against the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for allegedly failing to comply with a June 29, 2018 order that directed payment of gratuity, earned leave and other terminal benefits within three months. The deceased had been subject to three separate departmental proceedings, resulting in dismissal and forfeiture of benefits, some of which were affirmed by final orders that were never challenged. The petitioners argued that the 2014 writ order quashing the earlier departmental orders restored their entitlement to the benefits, while the respondents contended that the final penalty orders barred any further liability. The court examined the nature of the penalty orders and held that once a punishment order exists, whether correct or not, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for non‑payment of the benefits. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition, finding no contempt against the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to pay gratuity and terminal benefits as ordered by the writ court amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether the existence of final departmental penalty orders, even if allegedly wrongful, precludes the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the 2014 writ order despite the forfeiture orders passed in the departmental proceedings.
Subjects
- contempt
- gratuity
- terminal benefits
- dismissal
- departmental proceedings
- service law
- quashing of order
- interest
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.323 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8223 of 2014
======================================================
1.1. Deepak Kumar Singh Son of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present
resident of Vill. - Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar,
P.S.- Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
1.2. Renu Singh, daughter of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present resident of
Vill. - Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
1.3. Ruby Singh, daughter of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present resident of
Vill. - Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
1.4. Reena Singh, daughter of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present resident
of Vill. - Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
1.5. Dheeraj Singh, son of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present resident of
Vill. - Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
1.6. Kevla Devi, Wife of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, At present resident of Vill.
- Old Bahadurpur, Near Bajar Samiti, P.O.- Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-
Bahadurpur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Syalin Abbasi, the Chairman and Managing Director Food Corporation of
India Headquarters,16-20,Barakhamba Lane,New delhi-110001
2. B.Subha Laxmy ,The Executive Director(East zone) Food Corporation of
India,10A,Middlelon Row,Kolkata-700071
3. Avinash Kumar The General manager(Law) Food Corporation of
India,Arunachal Building,exhibition Road,Patna-800001
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate
Mr.Abhay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr.Arunendra Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs.Sukriti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Prabhakar Tekriwal
For the FC -9 : Mr.P.K.Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Dr.Mankeshwar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Ghosarveri, Advocate
Mr.Saurav Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
13 08-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court MJC No.323 of 2019(13) dt.08-05-2026
2/6
2. The present contempt petition has been filed for
non-compliance of order dated 29.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 8223 of 2014, whereby the order passed by the
Departmental authorities contained in Annexures-5, 7 and 10 to
the writ petition were found to be not sustainable and were
quashed. The respondent no. 3/O.P. No.-3 herein was directed to
pay gratuity and earned leave amount and other terminal
benefits of the petitioner within three months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of the order. No interest was awarded
on the amount of gratuity, earned leave and terminal benefits, if
the same will be paid within three months and it was further
directed that if same was not paid within three months then the
amount will carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.
3. It appears that when the order was not being
complied with, the deceased petitioner filed the present
contempt petition. During pendency of the contempt petition, he
died leaving behind his legal heirs, who were substituted vide
order dated 05.10.2023. A show-cause and supplementary
show-cause have been brought on record by the O.P. No. 3.
4. From perusal of the supplementary show-cause
filed on behalf of O.P. No. 3, it would appear that three separate
departmental proceedings were initiated against the deceased
Patna High Court MJC No.323 of 2019(13) dt.08-05-2026
3/6
petitioner.
5. In the first departmental proceeding, he was held
guilty and vide Memo No. 4149 dated 24.07.2012, the order of
dismissal from service and forfeiture of terminal benefits,
including gratuity was passed. In another departmental
proceeding which is related to the gross delay of more than two
months in submitting factual report of paddy procurement at the
Dumrao P.P.C., the penalty order was passed and same was
challenged by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8223 of 2014. The writ
petition was allowed and the L.P.A. and S.L.P. filed by the Food
Corporation of India was also dismissed. For compliance of the
said order, the present contempt petition has been filed.
6. In the second departmental proceeding, the
deceased was chargesheeted and held guilty for the charges. He
was awarded penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture of
terminal benefits, including gratuity vide Memo No. 4157-60
dated 24.07.2012. The deceased employee filed appeal before
the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India which
was disposed of by order dated 16.05.2013, whereby the order
passed by the disciplinary authority was modified and the
penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of terminal
benefits, including gratuity was passed. It has specifically been
Patna High Court MJC No.323 of 2019(13) dt.08-05-2026
4/6
pointed out that the petitioner did not challenge the order passed
by the appellate authority on 16.05.2013, thereby the same
attained finality.
7. It has further been stated that in the third
departmental proceeding, which was initiated on 02.06.2011, the
delinquent deceased petitioner was found guilty of the charges
and was awarded penalty of reduction in rank at the initial post
of AG-I (depot). Further, the period under suspension from
17.03.2011 to 02.06.2011 was directed to be treated as not spent
on duty. A departmental appeal was filed and vide order dated
02.08.2017, the appeal was kept in abeyance. The petitioner
never questioned the penalty orders before any Court and
therefore, the order of penalty attained finality.
8. The learned Senior counsel for the O.P. No. 3
submits that the supplementary affidavit filed by the legal heirs
of the deceased petitioner on 12.02.2026, in the present case,
with regard to unpaid dues of the deceased petitioner was
examined. It was found that the entire pay and salary for the
period, during which he remained in service has been paid to
him. Further the amount relating to terminal benefits including
gratuity was forfeited, in view of the penalty, which was
imposed in the second departmental proceeding, which
Patna High Court MJC No.323 of 2019(13) dt.08-05-2026
5/6
according to him was never questioned by the employee and has
attained finality. Thus, the terminal benefits including gratuity
has been forfeited by the Opposite Parties herein. He further
submits that so far the contributory provident fund amount of
the deceased petitioner is concerned, the same has been paid to
the deceased petitioner in the year 2012 and the details have
been mentioned in para no. 7(i) to (iv) of the affidavit filed on
08.04.2026. He further submits that in view of the second
penalty order, now nothing remains to be paid to the deceased
petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that once a dismissal order was passed
against the deceased petitioner, there was no question of passing
any further punishment order and once the order of dismissal
was interfered with and quashed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of
this Court, there is no question of challenging another order,
which is said to have been pending against the deceased
petitioner. He submits that the deceased petitioner is entitled for
all the terminal benefits and gratuity in terms of the order passed
by the writ Court in CWJC No. 8223 of 2014.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of materials available on record, this Court is of
Patna High Court MJC No.323 of 2019(13) dt.08-05-2026
6/6
the opinion that once the order of punishment is there, whether
it is a right order or wrong order, it cannot be seen contempt
jurisdiction. In view of the of penalty existing in favour of the
deceased petitioner and the same has never been challenged,
which has not been disputed by the petitioners herein, this Court
is of the opinion that no contempt will lie against the Opposite
Parties herein. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is
dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.