Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 428
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
N.K. JANU, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY DIVISION, AGRA & OTHERS – APPELLANTS
Versus
LAKSHMI CHANDRA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3740 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 15358 of 2018)
Decided On : 10-04-2019
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grievance regarding regularization of service on account of a break in service could not have been taken up in Contempt proceedings when such issue has attained finality in High Court.
(2) Summoning of officers to court to attend proceedings, impinges upon functioning of officers and eventually it is public at large who suffer on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt application – Maintainability – Once an order has been passed by Department, it was open to respondent to challenge the order by way of Writ Petition, but Contempt Jurisdiction could not be invoked – Contempt Court is to ensure that order of Court is complied with – Order of Court was to consider case of respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of minimum regular pay scale – Since appellants have considered claim of regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale, only remedy of respondent was by way of Writ Petition – High Court has exceeded Contempt Jurisdiction to compel officers of State to appear in court. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt application – Maintainability – Grievance regarding regularization of service on account of a break in service could not have been taken up in Contempt proceedings when such issue has attained finality in High Court – High Court was not justified in passing orders from time to time to secure presence of officers – Officers of State discharge public functions and duties – Orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved otherwise – Officers pass orders as a custodian of public money – Merely because an order has been passed, it does not warrant their personal presence – Summoning of officers to court to attend proceedings, impinges upon functioning of officers and eventually it is public at large who suffer on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them – Practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve purpose of administration of justice in view of separation of powers of Executive and Judiciary – If an order is not legal, Courts have ample jurisdiction to set aside such order and to issue such directions as may be warranted in facts of the case – Contempt Application dismissed. (Paras 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of Case:
Challenge in present appeal is to an order whereby application for recall of order dismissing Review Application in default was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Grievance regarding regularization of service on account of a break in service could not have been taken up in Contempt proceedings when such issue has attained finality in High Court. Entire proceedings in Contempt Application No. 1632 of 2009 are wholly unjustified and in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Contempt Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 16.02.2018 whereby an application for recall of the order dated 06.12.2017 dismissing the Review Application in default was dismissed.
3. The case has a chequered history. The respondent initially filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36896 of 1992. The said Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court reported as State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti Lal, (1998)1 UPLBEC 313. The said judgment has been affirmed by this Court in State of U.P and Others. vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 decided on 21.02.2002. This Court held that the daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale as is being received by their counter-parts in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily wagers. It was further ordered that since statutory Rules, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (Rules 2001) have been framed, therefore, question of framing any further scheme by the State does not arise.
4. The respondent again filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43443 of 2004 after the said order was passed by this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.10.2008 with the following directions:
“Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 has been interpreted by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Visheshwar Vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubbhag-3 and this Court in the said case has held that in case the employee is working on the cut off date and is continuing as such on daily wage post on the date of proclamation of the notification of the aforesaid Rules, he is entitled for regularisation, inspite of the fact that the employee worked intermittently. In the instant case, the petitioner, as stated by the counsel for the petitioner, has been engaged in the year 1983, though has worked intermittently, but regularly till 2001 and as such he is entitled consideration for regularisation of his Service, in view of the provision of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules as interpreted by this Court in the Case of Visheshwar Vs. Principal Secretary, Forest (Supra). In view of above, without going into the merits of the case the Opp. Parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 for regularisation of his Services and with regard to the payment of minimum of the regular pay scale in accordance with law as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.”
5. In terms of such order, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division Agra, passed an order on 19.11.2008 that the respondent is not eligible for regularisation/equal pay. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
“Because, the aforesaid daily wager was not found working continuously. Therefore, Sri Lakshmi Chandra does not come under the category of eligibility for regularisation/equal pay. There is a clear cut direction in S.L.P No. 3393/1999, SLP No. 91/03, 01/95(Secretary of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi) of Hon’ble Supreme Court, order dated 10.04.2005 that those persons whose appointment has been made without any selection procedure, cannot be eligible for regularisation against permanent post.
Therefore, after due consideration the undersigned has decided that Sri Lakshmi Chandra S/o Sri Pati Ram is not found eligible for regularisation/equal pay and the benefits of U.P. Daily Wager Appointment Rules 2001 Group-D cannot be accrued to him.
Therefore, his representation dated 06.11.2008 is hereby disposed off.”
6. The respondent instead of challenging the above order declining the claim for regularisat
