SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Cal) 83

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Basu
ASWINI KUMAR RATH - Appellant
Versus
P. C. MUKHERJEE - Respondent
Civil Rule 1381 (W)  Of  1964
Decided On : MARCH 29, 1965

Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM DUTTA, KALIPADA CHAKRAVARTI, MANJUSRI DUTT, S.S.ROY

A party against whom a writ of mandamus is issued can challenge the validity of the writ in a contempt proceeding, including impeaching the grounds on which the writ was issued.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - VIOLATION - INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT AND WRIT - VALIDITY OF WRIT - BREACH OF WRIT - WILFULNESS - BONA FIDE INTENTION - ADJUSTMENT OF PAY-SCALE - TIME-LIMIT - CONTEMPT PROCEEDING - DISCHARGE OF RULE.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, ordinary Graduates appointed as Sub Inspectors of Schools along with Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates on the same pay scale, challenged the State's discriminatory order of 1959, which raised the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to remove the discrimination without specifying the exact manner of doing so. The State issued an order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates to the level of the Petitioners, but the adjustment of their pay was not immediate, leading to a contempt proceeding against the State.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that the State's order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates was not in contempt of the writ of mandamus, as the Court had not specifically directed the State to raise the Petitioners' pay-scale to the higher level. 2. The Court recognized that a party against whom a writ is issued can challenge the validity of the writ in a contempt proceeding, including impeaching the grounds on which the writ was issued. 3. The Court found that the State had a bona fide intention to implement the order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates within a reasonable time, as evidenced by a draft Government order produced during the hearing.

Issues: 1. Whether the State's order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates violated the writ of mandamus issued by the Court. 2. Whether the State's delay in adjusting the pay of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates amounted to wilful disobedience of the Court's order. 3. Whether the State had a bona fide intention to comply with the Court's order.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State's order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates was not in contempt of the writ of mandamus because the Court had not specifically directed the State to raise the Petitioners' pay-scale to the higher level. The Court recognized that it could not make a new case for a party or base its decision on grounds outside the pleadings. 2. The Court found that the State had a bona fide intention to implement the order reducing the pay-scale of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates within a reasonable time, as evidenced by a draft Government order produced during the hearing. Therefore, the Court held that the State's conduct was not wilful disobedience of the Court's order.

Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule in the contempt proceeding, as the State had a bona fide intention to comply with the Court's order within a reasonable time.

D. BASU, J.

( 1 ) THIS proceeding in contempt arises out of an alleged breach of the Rule absolute made in C. R. 253 (W) of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original case')

( 2 ) IN that case, the Petitioners came with the complaint that their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 had been violated by certain orders issued by the State The Petitioners are ordinary Graduates. They WTC appointed Sub Inspectors of Schools, in the year 1954 or thereabout together with others who are Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates, on the same pay scale of Rs. 100-225, on the basis of an advertisement which laid down the minimum qualification as a Bachelor's degree, with a diploma in leaching-without making any distinction between Graduates inter se. The Petitioners' complaint was that some five years after such appointment, the Stale made a discrimination by the impugned order of 1959 in Ann. B, by which the pay-scale of the Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates was raised to Rs. 130-350/-, thus making a discrimination against the Petitioners who are ordinary Graduates, without any reasonable basis for classification, the benefit of this higher pay-scale having been retrospectively extended to those Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates who had been appointed along with the Petitioners in 1954, on the same basis. Subsequently, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Pay Commission the pay-scales of all Sub-Inspectors of Schools were revised by an order of 1962, but the discrimination made against the Petitioners was not removed, for, while the scale of Sub-Inspectors who were ordinary Graduates was raised to Rs. 175-325/-, that of Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates was raised to Rs. 225-475/ -. The Petitioners, on the foregoing facts, challenged the validity of the impugned order in Aun. B, as modified by the subsequent order of 1962 as discriminatory, and prayed for a writ of mandamus, so that their pay-scale might be raised to the same level as that of the Graduates of the higher order. The writ of Mandamus prayed for in Para XIV of the Petition was as follows:"in these circumstances, your petitioners pray your Lordships (a) for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs or order directing the opposite parties to rescind and quash the order of fixing a different and lower scale of pay for the petitioners and all the B. A. or B. Sc. Sub-Inspectors of Schools and directing them to fix the same scale of pay viz. Rs. 130 to Rs. 350/- exclusive of clearness allowance with effect from 1st April 1959 and the revised scale of pay viz. Rs. 225 to Rs. 475/- including clearness allowance with effect from 1st April, 1961. "the Rule nisi was issued on the following terms:"17-1-62. Upon reading a petition of Aswini Kumar Rath and others and affidavit of verification thereof dated 17-4-1902 and the exhibits or anuexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. S. Roy Advocate for the said petitioners. It is ordered that a Rule do issue calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the opposite parties to rescind the order fixing a different and lower scale of pay for the petitioner and all B. A. B. Sc. Sub-Inspectors of Schools and directing them to fix the same scale of pay as mentioned in the petition. "

( 3 ) IN my judgment, I held that the impugned order violated boll) Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as though the ordinary Graduates and the Graduates having Honours or a Master's degree were appointed as a single unit on the announcement that they would get the same scale of pay, the impugned order sought to make a subsequent discrimination by offering higher pay to the Honours Graduates and Post-Graduates without any reasonable basis for such favourable treatment But the relief granted was not exactly in the same form as the Petitioners prayed for in their Petition. The order sought for was that the Petitioners' pay-scale























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top