Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SUDHIR RANJAN ROY, J
Rabindra Nath Biswas, Head Surveyor (Retd)
Vs.
B.C. Mookerjee, Secretary, Department of Land and Land Reforms, Govt. of West Bengal & Ors
C.R. No. 2597 of 1987 (Contempt Rule)
Decided on: January 28, 1988
CONTEMPT OF COURT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS - PENALTY - PAYMENT OF FINE OR IMPRISONMENT - SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 10 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a contempt application against the respondents for wilful violation and contempt of the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86. The Court had directed the respondents to fix the pay scales of the petitioners and pay them all arrear emoluments consequent to such fixation within a specified period. Despite several extensions granted by the Court, the respondents failed to comply with the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents had deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Court's orders. The Court found that the respondents had not made any attempt to comply with the orders and had instead sought to avoid compliance by raising various excuses. The Court also rejected the respondents' contention that they were not liable for contempt because they were not parties to the proceeding in which the orders were passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86. 2. Whether the respondents were liable for contempt of court even though they were not parties to the proceeding in which the orders were passed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the Court's orders because they had failed to comply with the orders despite several extensions granted by the Court. The Court also found that the respondents had not made any attempt to comply with the orders and had instead sought to avoid compliance by raising various excuses. 2. The Court held that the respondents were liable for contempt of court even though they were not parties to the proceeding in which the orders were passed because they had knowledge of the orders and had wilfully disobeyed them.
Final Decision: The Court held the respondents guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt of the Court's orders and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500 each. In default of payment of the fine, the respondents were to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks each.
1. This Rule arises out of a contempt application filed by the petitioner in the main rule, being C.R. No 5831 (W) of 1981, for wilful violation and contempt of the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86.
2. It appears that the said Civil Rule was heard for two consecutive days and was made absolute on contest by the Court's order dated April 18, 1980.
3. By the said order the State respondents were directed :- (1) to fix the pay scales of the petitioners under the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules of 1961, 1970 and 1981 within a period of ninety days from the date of the order and (2) to pay them all arrear emoluments consequent to such fixation within a period of sixty days thereafter. There is no dispute regarding the communication of this order to the respondents. On 19.5.86 the State preferred an appeal against the said Older.
4. The Instant contempt application having been filed on 13.8.86, the State on 10.9.86 moved an application before the learned Appeal Bench for stay of operation of the relevant order passed by this Court but no such stay appears to have been granted.
5. Thereafter, on 20.9.86 the then Collector of Burdwan, Shri Jahar Sarkar, filed an affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that steps had already been taken to fix the pay scales of the petitioners in compliance with the Courts order dated 18.4.86
6. By a subsequent affidavit in opposition dated 30.9.86. It was stated by the said Shri Sarkar that the pay scales of the petitioners had actually been fixed and he prayed for sometime for payment of the arrear emoluments to them.
7. This Court by Its order dated 1.10.86 accordingly extended the time as prayed, till 31.12.86.
8. Thereafter by an order dated 24.12.86 the said period was further extended till 28.2.1987 since Mr. A.N. Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the alleged contemners, contended specifically that the order would be complied within the said period.
9. The time for compliance having been so extended the appeal preferred by the State against the Initial order dated 18.4.86 was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution This Clearly indicates that the respondents were all set to comply with the Court’s order within the extended time as fixed by this Court.
10. But for some reason or other the strategy somehow changed and on 27.2.87 an application was filed for recalling the order of the learned Appeal Bench dismissing the appeal for non prosecution and as it appears, the learned Appeal Bench has granted stay of operation of the said order.
11. Thereafter, the respondents No 2 and 3 filed separate affidavits-in opposition.
12. According to the respondents the order of this Court regarding payment of arrears could not be complied with because-
(a) it would create an anomalous position in relation to the reports of the Pay Commissions and Pay Committees;
(b) It will upset the whole pay structure after 26 years leading to serious repercussions amongst various sections of Government employees;
(c) it will be against public policy and
(d) it will cause serious pressure on the public exchequer by opening a flood gate.
12A. In addition to these the respondent no. 3, the present Collector, Burdwan, has denied his liability on the ground that be was not the Collector of the district when the impugned orders were made.
13. In my judgment the contentions so raised by the respondents are totally irrelevant.
14. It is really unfortunate that having suffered an order and having also agreed to comply with it, different excuses have now been sought to be made out for its non compliance.
15. A Court's order, so long it remain effective, is meant for compliance and not to be trifled at. Such a contumacious conduct by the Government, as was observed by the Supreme Court in Gurucharan Das v State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 1418, is indeed heinous since it sets a very bad example to the common man vis-a-vis respect due to Courts of Justice.
16. It need not be emphasised that violation
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
