1. Promotion dispute — Implementation of court orders — Creation of supernumerary post for consequential benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 866
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : K.Ramaswamy
T.R.Dhananjaya
Versus
J.Vasudevan
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 8/25/95
Important Points
The court held that the government cannot circumvent a final judicial order by re-evaluating eligibility based on rules after the matter has been adjudicated. Deliberate attempts to avoid implementing court directions constitute willful disobedience and contempt of court, warranting punishment.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Court Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution Of India, 1950 - employee of Corporation for purpose of all retrial benefits – Construction by government to mean denial of rights - As last resort to salvage him government had revalidated Rules but was unsalvaged - He had challenged judgment of Division Bench of High court of Karnataka but by that time he had retired from service as Chief Engineer - Though he was unsuccessful while declining to interfere with the order of the division bench of the High court this court directed that he would be treated as employee of the Corporation for purpose of all retrial benefits - Subsequently petitioner who was competing with and became successful filed in this court apprehending that the benefits given to by virtue of court’s order might be construed by the government to mean denial of rights flowing to him order passed by division bench of High court and by court and sought protection of his rights and prayed for clarification of order as he was not made a party to the appeal – Held, HAVING considered these contentions given our due consideration court think that there is no justification to accede to contentions raised by counsel to take lenient view - Reasons are obvious - As stated earlier pursuant to orders passed by court Government had passed order directing Corporation to implement order - When Corporation had passed resolution creating supernumerary post and to fill that post by accommodating with consequential benefits the government was only to give effect order as passed by this court - But instead of giving effect to the resolution the government volte-face exercised the court to see that the order is not given effect to - If the respondent had really harbored any doubt he would have asked for clarification - Instead the court was prayed for extension of time for compliance which accordingly was given - QUESTION is whether there is any extenuating circumstance to show leniency in imposing the sentence - Considering question in this backdrop court are opinion that there is no extenuating circumstance at all as after promoting nothing at all could have reasonably stood in the way of petitioner to get appointed to supernumerary post of Additional Chief Engineer created by Corporation - It is only defiant attitude of government which derived him that post – Order accordingly
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges willful disobedience of judicial orders; Respondent contends the petitioner was ineligible for promotion under service rules. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Government attempted to circumvent final judicial orders by revisiting eligibility rules after requesting time for implementation. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 13 , 14 )
4. A party cannot circumvent final judicial orders by invoking service rules to truncate the effect of the judgment once rights are adjudicated. (Para 11 )
5. Respondent found guilty of contempt and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment; government directed to implement the resolution for benefits. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Can a government authority revisit eligibility rules to deny benefits after a court has finally adjudicated the right to those benefits?
No. Once a claim has been adjudicated and the right has become final, the government cannot go behind the orders or use rules as a legal alibi to circumvent the court's directions. (Para 11 )
7. What constitutes willful disobedience in the context of implementing court orders?
Willful disobedience occurs when an authority, after requesting time for implementation, deliberately attempts to circumvent the order by taking a volte-face step to deny the benefits. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
8. Does a bona fide belief in the interpretation of rules excuse a finding of contempt if the party requested an extension for compliance?
No. If an authority harbors doubts about an order, they should seek clarification. Requesting an extension of time and then acting to circumvent the order indicates a deliberate effort to disobey. (Para 13 )
(1) ONE D. Dasegowda, the then Superintending Engineer, a government employee on deputation to Bangalore Municipal Corporation (for short, the Corporation) as Chief Engineer, was appellant in Civil No. 797 of 1993. As a last resort to salvage him, the government had revalidated the Rules but was unsalvaged. He had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High court of Karnataka but by that time he had retired from service as Chief Engineer. Though he was unsuccessful, while declining to interfere with the order of the division bench of the High court, this court directed that he would be treated as employee of the Corporation for purpose of all retiral benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner who was competing with Dasegowda and became successful, filed IA No. 3 in this court, apprehending that the benefits given to Dasegowda by virtue of this courts order dated 19-2-1993 in Civil No. 797 of 1993* might be construed by the government to mean denial of the rights flowing to him under the order passed by the division bench of the High court and by this court, and sought protection of his rights, and prayed for clarification of the order as he was not made a party to the appeal. The order dated 19-3-1984 made in his favour by the division bench of the High court in WPs Nos. 20147-48 of 1979 was upheld by this court in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 7317-19 of 1984. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 26/7/1993, passed in the aforesaid IA, this court clarified thus:
"THE applicant, Dhananjaya, apprehends that by virtue of the orders passed by this court in the above appeal, it may be construed that he is not entitled to the benefits arising out of the orders passed by the Division bench of the Kamataka High court as confirmed by this court referred to above. It is clarified that this court did not intend to upset the rights given to the applicant, Dhananjaya by virtue of the order passed by this court in the above appeal. He will be entitled to all the benefits flowing from those orders. Under these circumstances, whatever rights that have been accrued to the applicant, Dhananjaya, he is entitled to all the benefits and to effectuate the said rights, if it is necessary, it may be open to the Corporation to create supernumerary post for the period in question and give the benefits to the applicant for which he is entitled as per the judgment of the division bench. The State government is directed to issue necessary orders in this behalf. It is further clarified that this clarification does not have the effect of construing that the appellant, Dasegowda will not be entitled to the status and pensionary benefits as flowing from the order passed by this Court in the appeals."
(2) PURSUANT to the said order, the government directed the Corporation to implement the order of this court, by its Order No. HUD 168 MNU 93, Bangalore dated 2/9/1993, reading as below:
"IN the circumstances explained above the Bangalore City Corporation is directed that Shri T.R. Dhananjaya be given all the benefits flowing out of the order of the High court dated 19-3-1984 in Writ Petitions Nos. 20147/1979 and 20148/1979 as affirmed by the Supreme court of India in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 7317-19/1984. This Order is passed in obedience of the direction of the Supreme Court of India contained in the Order dated 26/7/1993 passed in IA No. 3 of CA 797/1993. It is further directed that the Bangalore City Corporation shall give effect to the said Order of the Supreme court of India."
(3) ON its receipt, the Corporation convened a meeting of the Taxation and Standing Committee for Finance and the said Committee in its Subject No. 136 of 1993 dated 21/9/1993 noticing all the disputes and directions issued by this court resolved to create one post of Additional Chief Engineer w.e.f. 1/8/1990 in the scale of Rs. 4,550-5,600 and to grant consequential benefits emanating therefrom in accordance with Section 88(2(3 of the Ac
