The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person can be held guilty of contempt only if there is wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, or direction. The court emphasized that 'wilful' disobedience requires a deliberate action with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse, and that the breach or wilful disobedience has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 04th March, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 568/2010.

2. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner, who is around 73 years of age, was being harassed on account of non-payment of pension and pensionary benefits in spite of clear cut directions in a Division Bench judgment dated 4th March, 2013.

3. He stated that the petitioner while working as Deputy Director was charge sheeted for major penalty proceedings in 1984 and thereupon, the petitioner was dismissed vide the order dated 20th June, 1986.

4. Challenging the order of removal dated 20th June, 1986 etc., the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 2296/1991 after exhausting departmental remedies and the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order dated 6th October, 2009.

5. He further stated that the petitioner filed an appeal being LPA No. 568/2010 challenging the order of learned Single Judge and ultimately, after hearing the parties on all issues including entitlement of pension the Division Bench allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 4th March, 2013. The relevant portion of the Division Bench’s directions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“11. ....... In our view, the ends of justice would be met by substituting the penalty of removal from service by penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. We ordered accordingly. We also direct that despite modification of the penalty, the appellant will not be entitled to any back-wages, though he would be entitled to counting of whole of the service till the date of his superannuation for the purpose of working out his pension. He will not be entitled to any additional payments towards leave encashment or gratuity etc on account of modification of the penalty imposed upon him.

12. With above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

(emphasis added)

6. Mr. Gupta also stated that the respondent office introduced a pension scheme and in terms of communication dated 8th February, 1989, invited options from its employees to shift from Contributory Provident Fund to Provident Fund. He, however, stated that the petitioner could not furnish the option as he was not in employment at that stage.

7. He stated that only on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised the option in terms of communication dated 8th February, 1989, the respondent filed a Review Petition No. 196/2013 stating that the petitioner was a Contributory Provident Fund subscriber and not eligible for pension. He emphasised that the Division Bench after hearing the parties dismissed the review petition by way of a non-reasoned order dated 11th April, 2013.

8. He stated that thereafter the petitioner sought implementation of the order by submitting one more representation dated 22nd April, 2013.

9. Mr. Gupta submitted that the response/order dated 23rd September, 2014 issued by respondent ran contrary to the directions of the Division Bench judgment, which had attained finality.

10. He submitted that the Supreme Court in Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 261 has held that “rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions.......”

(emphasis added)

11. Consequently, according to him, respondent/contemnor is guilty of contempt.

12. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Khata