S/L 2 22.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Suvayan WPCRC 264 of 2019 In WPA 4367 of 2019 (Assigned) Sri Pijush Bandopadhyay Vs. Kishor Karmakar Mr. Pijush Bandopadhyay … the applicant (in-person). Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel …for the alleged contemnor. 1. In course of hearing Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor has filed a compliance report in the form of affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the PPO in the name of the writ petitioner. 2. Let the compliance report as filed today on behalf of the alleged contemnor be taken record. 3. This Court has meticulously gone through the order as passed by a co-ordinate Bench while disposing the WPA 4367 of 2019. It appears to this Court that while disposing the said writ petition the said co-ordinate Bench on 10.06.2019 directed the SI of Schools, Chanditala Circle to issue a letter to the writ petitioner stating the documents which the petitioner was required to submit in order to avail his benefits. From the earlier affidavit of compliance as filed before this Court and as affirmed on 17.01.2020 it reveals that necessary letters have been issued by the then of SI of Schools, Chanditala Circle asking the writ petitioner to forward the documents to process 2 his retiral benefits. The said Court also directed that the entire exercise should be calculated within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application for retiral benefits made by the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. Bandopadhyay, the writ petitioner who appears in-person submits before this Court that he has received a copy of the PPO from Mr. Bandopadhyay in course of hearing. On being asked by this Court Mr. Bandopadhyay submits before this Court that the Provident Fund amount has already been credited in his bank account. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Bandopadhyay (the writ petitioner herein) that he has not received the LPC from the alleged contemnor. 5. On careful consideration of the order dated 10.06.2019 as passed in WPA 4367 of 2019 it reveals that substantial portion of the said order as passed by the co-ordinate Bench has been complied with by the alleged contemnor. The issue of non-receipt of the LPC was not the subject matter of the said writ petition being WPA 4367 of 2019. 6. In view of such, this Court is of considered view that such grievance of the writ petitioner cannot be considered in the instant contempt petition. 7. So far as the delay in disbursing the retiral benefits in favour of the writ petitioner by the alleged contemnor, in considered view of this Court, is innocuous and it appears to this Court that such delay 3 occurred on account of exchange of papers between the parties. 8. As already observed that since substantial portion of the order dated 10.06.2019 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WPA 4367 of 2019 has been complied with, there is nothing to be decided in the instant contempt application and accordingly the contempt application is thus disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)