IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance of directions of High Court, appeal whereagainst dismissed by Supreme Court, would constitute contempt of High Court.

ORDER –

1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner inter alia requesting this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for alleged disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008, dated 04.01.2008.

2. The High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein had issued certain directions to the Union of India and its officer to re-designate the petitioner from the rank of Hawaldar (Radio Mechanic) to Warrant Officer as recommended by the Ministry of Home affairs and also to extend the pay-scales as given to the rank counter parts in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Border Security Force (BSF).

3. Being aggrieved by the order and directions issued by the High Court, the Union of India and Anr. through their respective officer(s) had filed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 before this Court inter alia questioning the judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition No. 497 of 2001, dated 11.02.2005. The alleged contemnors herein Mr. R.K. Singh, Secretary, Government of India and Lt. General Ranvir Singh, Director General of Assam, Rifles were the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the aforesaid appeal.

4. This Court has dismissed the appeal and held as under: "On a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by the High Court, warranting interference. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs."

5. The petitioner before us, being of the view that since the contemnors/respondents herein have not complied with the orders and directions issued by the High Court as well as by this Court in spite of lapse of considerable period of time from the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court and hence willfully disobeyed the judgment and order of this Court, has filed this contempt petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. The respondents have entered appearance and also filed their respective counter affidavits before this Court.

7. At the time of hearing of this contempt petition, we have deliberated on two questions: firstly, whether the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this Court and secondly, whether the petitioner could approach High Court which has disposed of the writ petition and issued certain directions to the alleged contemnors for the grant of prayer sought before us in this petition.

8. The learned senior counsel for the complainant/petitioner, Shri Kumar would bring to our notice the decision of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. S.B.I. Overseas Branch, Bombay, (2006) 6 SCC 385 and submit that the judgment and order passed by the High Court has now merged with the orders passed by this Court when this Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as it is the order of this Court which has been willfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors.

9. We have carefully perused the decision of this Court. A reading of the judgment would certainly indicate that when the civil appeals and the special leave petitions are dismissed with reasons, the orders passed by the Courts below would merge with the judgment and order passed by this Court. The said decision has been followed by this Court in a catena of subsequent judgments of this Court.

10. In view of what has been said by this Court in the aforesaid decision, we cannot hold that the judgment and order passed by the High Court has not merged with the judgment and order passed by this Court when the civil appeal filed by the complainant/petitioner was dismissed.

11. The first question having been answered, the next question that would arise for our consideration and decision is whether the contempt petition requires to be en