IMPORTANT POINT
It is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a Senior Civil Service Personnel to feign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of the Court stands crystal clear in the judgment.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2(b)-Civil contempt-Understanding of Court order by senior most bureaucrat of State Government-Graduate Laboratory Assistants-Claim to be treated as teaching staff and to give them a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical Instructors-Issue of writ of Mandamus to treat Graduate Laboratory Assistants as teaching staff w.e.f. 10.8.1983-Order confirmed-Change of date of entitlement from 10.8.1983 to 1.8.1987-Petitioners contended immediate compliance with order of this Court-Contemnors, Secretary, Department of Higher Education trying to feign ignorance about litigation-Matter pending in Courts since more than 15 years-Willingness in matter of disregard of this Court s order-Action punishable under Art. 142 of the Constitution and also under the Act.
       Held : Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. (Para 15)
       It is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a senior Civil Service Personnel to feign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of this Court stands crystal clear in the judgment. Government employees ought to be treated at par with another set of employees and this Court on an earlier occasion lent concurrence to the view of the learned Single Judge that the Circulars issued by the State Government cannot but be ascribed to be arbitrary : Government is not a machinery for oppression and ours being a welfare State as a matter of fact be opposed thereto. It is the people s welfare that the State is primarily concerned with and avoidance of compliance with a specific order of the Court cannot be termed to be a proper working of a State body in terms of the wishes and aspirations of the founding fathers of our Constitution. (Para 20)
       This matter is pending in Courts since more than last 15 years, but unfortunately the litigatious spirit of the State-respondent have not minimised even to the slightest extent - the spirit continues and so is the deprivation. The defence of understanding is not only moonshine but a deliberate attempt to over-reach this Court s order and as such wilfulness in the matter of disregard of this Court s order is apparent on the face of it and we are not prepared to accept the same as a defence of an action for deliberate and wilful disregard of an order of Court. We find that the actions on the part of the respondent-authorities are not only unreasonable but deliberate and spiteful and that too in spite of a specific direction in all the five judgments so far obtained by the petitioners in their favour. Avoidance is written large and it would be difficult for us to consume the same without any particular rhyme or reason. (Para 21)
       Respondents have wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court in the guise of a totally non-acceptable and sham defence of understanding and thus rendered themselves punishable under the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution and also under the Act of 1971. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-The most accepted methodology of governmental working ought always to be fairness and in the event of its absence, law Courts would be within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter appropriately. This proposition is so well settled that we need not dilate further on to this. It is this concept of fairness which Mr. Ganguli, appearing in support of the Petition for contempt very strongly contended, is totally absent in spite of three final rounds of litigation upto this Court between the parties. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors, however, contended that the conduct of the respondents can neither be termed to be unfair or in disregard to the orders of the Court on a true reading of the order - this stand of the respondents, however, stands negated by Mr. Ganguli. The conduct, Mr. Ganguli, contended, is not only deliberate but utterly perverse and in grossest violation of the orders of this Court and by reason therefor the fruit of the litigation has not yet been made available and being decried to the petitioner for one reason or the other for the last about 15 years. Incidentally, it would be convenient to note that the principal issue involved in the matter pertains to the entitlement of the petitioners to the scale equivalent to that of Physical Instructors in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 as on 2nd July, 1984 and Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1986.

2. Turning, however, on to the factual score, it appears that the petitioners are Science Graduates of different universities in the country and have been appointed as Laboratory Assistants in colleges and in addition to their normal duties, the petitioners were supposed to assist the teachers and help the students in practical classes, impart instructions to the students in practical classes and to perform demonstration work including preparation of the lesson units in the practical classes. According to the petitioners these Laboratory Assistants were all along being treated as teaching staff and pay and allowances including the Government share of Dearness Allowances were paid to them until the issuance of the Government Order No. 288 - Education (CS) dated 21st March, 1969 wherein Laboratory Assistants of non-government affiliated colleges were treated as members of the non-teaching staff. The effect of such re-designation had a direct impact as regards the payment of Dearness Allowances and obviously the same being prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, representations followed against the Government Order, but, however, to no effect. Representations were also made by reason of the withdrawal of teaching status as the Graduate Laboratory Assistants had to discharge teaching function as well apart from the normal conduct of the Laboratory work.

3. The factual score depict that subsequently in August, 1983 the State Government redesignated the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors - it is on this score that Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition very strongly criticised. The change of nomenclature according to him was otherwise meaningless as there was neither any conferment of status of teachers or the grant of any pay scale consistent with the teaching status. The Government notification was attributed to be a mischievous deception and a "hoax" - a rather strong criticism : the question, therefore, arises whether there was any justification of such an attribute to the Government notification dated 10th August, 1983 : a short question consequently, thus - what was the necessity for issuance of such an order - would the change of nomenclature assist in any way the Graduate Laboratory Assistants? A bare perusal of the notification does not howsoever give any reason whatsoever as to the necessity of its issuance - the notification on the contrary makes it clear that there would be no enhancement of pay as also the status as non-teaching staff would remain unchanged :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 340

IMPORTANT POINTIt is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a Senior Civil Service Personnel to feign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of the Court stands crystal clear in the judgment.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a Senior Civil Service Personnel to feign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of the Court stands crystal clear in the judgment.