Back
1995 Supreme(Cal) 203
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
West Bengal Pensioners Association & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Sri A. Gupta, Secretary to the Department of Finance, Govt. of West Bengal - Respondent
C. R. No. 8824(W) of 1994
Decided on : June 22, 1995
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bimal Chakraborty.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jaidip Kar.
A bona fide interpretation of a court order, even if erroneous, does not amount to civil contempt unless such disobedience is wilful.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Civil Contempt - Wilful Disobedience - Interpretation of Court Order - Pension Benefits - Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents - Nakara's Case (D. S. Nakara v. Union of India) - Ratio Decidendi - Classification of Pensioners - Cut-off Date for Revised Pay Scales - Discrimination - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Bona Fide Interpretation of Court Order - Absence of Wilful Disobedience.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government pensioner, filed a contempt application alleging wilful disobedience of a court order directing the Secretary, Department of Finance, to consider the re-fixation of the petitioner's pension and retirement benefits at par with post-1986 pensioners. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, which held that a cut-off date for the application of liberalised pension rules was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contemner/respondent had complied with the court's order by passing a speaking order explaining the rationale behind the different treatment of pre-1986 and post-1986 pensioners. The court noted that the contemner/respondent had taken into consideration the relevant rules and policies, including the adoption of the Central Government's decision to extend retirement benefits from time to time.
Issues: 1. Whether the contemner/respondent wilfully disobeyed the court's order by refusing to apply the liberalised pension rules to pre-1986 pensioners? 2. Whether the cut-off date of 1.1.1986 for the application of the revised pay scales was arbitrary and discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contemner/respondent did not wilfully disobey the court's order, as the contemner/respondent had passed a speaking order explaining the rationale behind the different treatment of pre-1986 and post-1986 pensioners. 2. The court held that the cut-off date of 1.1.1986 for the application of the revised pay scales was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as it was based on the date of coming into force of the revised scales of pay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt application and discharged the rule issued against the petitioner.
The judgment of the Court was as follows :––
This application for contempt has been filed for wilful disobedience of an order dated 22.1.1993 passed by Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J., the operative portion whereof reads thus :––
"Accordingly, after bearing Mr. Chakraborty for the petitioners and considering the facts stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, wherein the observations of the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, were quoted in verbatim, this Court proposes to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Secretary, Department of Finance, to consider the question of re-fixation of the pension of the petitioners and their retirement benefits at par with post 1986 pensioners and in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal is directed to dispose of the same within a period of 3 months from communication of this order, and is expected to pass a 'reasoned order', in disposing of the same.
The Secretary, Department of Finance, is also directed to give opportunity to Nirmalya Chatterjee, General Secretary, Government Pensioners' Association, West Bengal, petitioner No. 2 herein, to represent the said Association, before him."
2. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent by an order dated 30.4.1993 rejected the contention of the petitioners.
3. Mr. Chakraborty the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from the impugned order it would appear that the contemner/respondent has committed an illegality. In so far as he failed to take into consideration the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in (1) D. S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130, as was directed by this Court in the aforementioned order. The learned Counsel submitted that the State in its affidavit-in-opposition filed in the main writ application had admitted that these employees who had retired prior to 1.1.1986 had been getting lessor amount of pension than those who have retired after 1.1.1986; although the difference was not substantial. The learned Counsel further submits that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the contemner/respondent, it would appear that deponent thereof allegedly took into consideration a decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Union of India v. P. N. Menon & Ors. since reported in AIR 1994 SC 2221 which is evidently wrong inasmuch as the said decision was rendered one year after the impugned order was passed. The learned Counsel contends that keeping in view the chart as stated in the affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition, it would appear that the members of the petitioner-association would not get the same amount of pension which the employees retiring after 1.1.1986 would receive.
4. Mr. Jaidip Kar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemner/respondent, however, submitted that Nakara's case (supra) has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in various decisions, namely, (3) Indian Ex-Service League & Ors. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1182 : 1991 (2) SCC 104 and (4) Action Committee, South Eastern Railway Pensioners & Anr v. Union of India reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 544. The learned Counsel submits that the contemner/respondent cannot be said to have committed any contempt of this Court inasmuch as he has passed the impugned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to Sri Nirmalya Chatterjee, Secretary, Government Pensioners' Association within the stipulated time. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the definition of Civil contempt as contained in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the contemner/respondent cannot be said to have violated this Court's order inasmuch as there is no wilful disobedience therein. Relying on a decision of this Court in (5) S. K. Saha & Another v. Gokul Chandra Dhara reported in 1987(1) CHN 446 the learned Counsel contends that a bona fide order which although may not be legally sustainable wou
