Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Commnr. of Intermediate Education – Appellant
VERSUS
Y. Kumar Swamy & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13215 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5063 of 2014) With Civil Appeal No. 13217 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10271 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 13216 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10272 of 2014)
Decided On : 27-11-2024
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, thereby directing the appellants, who were the various officers of the State Government to remain present in the Court and show cause as to why an action for committing contempt of the Court be not initiated against them.
3. In a writ petition filed by the respondents, interim order(s) came to be passed by the High Court, directing that the writ petitioners shall be continued in service for a period of six weeks from the said date. However, on an application filed by the State, the interim order(s) came to be vacated.
4. The order vacating the interim order(s) specifically notes that the writ petitioners were not appointed on regular basis and that they were appointed on contractual basis. It also notes that subsequently the State had made regular appointments after undertaking a selection process through Public Service Commission.
5. While doing so, the State had also adopted the principle of last come first go with regard to the lecturers, who were already working on contractual basis.
6. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the High Court was justified in issuing notice of contempt and that too directing the officer of the Government to remain personally present on the very first day.
7. This court had reiterated, time and again, that the personal presence of the Government Officers should not be casually directed by the Courts, inasmuch as they are required to be on field for performing their official duties.
8. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable.
9. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated passed by the High Court dated 29.11.2013 are quashed and set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
The court ruled that the personal presence of Government Officers in contempt proceedings should not be casually mandated, emphasizing their duty to perform official responsibilities.
The court emphasizes the necessity for clear judicial directives in contempt proceedings to ensure compliance and efficient resolution of rights, rather than prolonging litigation.
(1) Power of High Courts to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be used to obstruct parties or their Counsel from availing legal remedies.(2) Chief Justice does not have power, under Article 229, to....
(1) Grant of 50% of back wages for entire period would be giving benefit of one’s own wrong who intentionally abstained from duty for 13 long years and now wants to take benefit of back wages as well....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
