D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) On the basis of the observation made in the order dated 4th August, 2000 in appeal from original order passed in APO No. 372 of 1996, this contempt application has been filed. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Court had finally decided the entitlement of the petitioner at page 12 (page 50 of the application) of the judgment. Therefore, the authority had deliberately violated the direction contained in the said order while considering the petitioner's case as it appears from the order dated 7th May, 2001, which is at page 29 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 24th May, 2001. Mr. H. K. Mitra, learned Counsel for the applicant, pointed out that there was nothing to be decided by the Authority on the face of the observation made in the order itself. Therefore, the order has been passed deliberately for the purpose of avoiding the effect of the order of which contempt is alleged, Mr. Mitra relied on the decisions in Dr. Subhas Chandra Prettier v. Mrs. Leena Chakraborty, (1994) 2 Cri LJ 513 (Cal): (1995 Cri LJ 707); National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. v. Shri S. K. Agnihotri, (1987) 2 Cal LJ 463 and Jiban Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 2 Cal HN 282 in order to contend that the avoidance of the order or omission to note a particular observation in the order amounts to contempt.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the alleged contemners-respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that there was no contempt at all, since the impugned order dated 7th May, 2001 had taken care of the provisions as applicable in the petitioners' case and there was no final determination of the entitlement of the petitioners in the order dated 4th August, 2000.
(3.) In order to appreciate the respective contentions, we may refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 4th August, 2000 viz : "It is not a case where for the purpose of giving effect to doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" the differences pointed out by the learned Counsel are required to be gone into. The State of West Bengal has passed an order in favour of the petitioners. The authorities of the C.M.D.A. cannot go there against. As noticed hereinbefore, Clause (6) of the Memorandum, which is applicable to the employees of the C.M.D.A. is a replica of Clause (4) of the benefits granted to the Schedule 'A' Stengraphers of the State of West Bengal. It is also correct to contend that by claiming the third stage increment, the petitioners have sought to overcome the difficulties as regards the promotion policy adopted by C.M.D.A. The fact that they have been promoted as Grade 'A' Stenographers is not in dispute. They could only be so promoted, after they satisfied the requirement of promotion policy, namely, working at least for a period of four years each in Grade 'C' and Grade 'B' respectively. Once they had 'been promoted to Grade 'A' and had been granted two increments, there does not appear to be any person why the third stage of increment should be denied to them.";