Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani, N.V.Anjaria, JJ.
Avantikaben Laxmishankar Bhatt – Applicant
Versus
Pankaj Joshi (IAS) Secretary Or His Successor – Opponent
R/Misc. Civil Application No. 798, 824 of 2019 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 2018 With R/Misc. Civil Application No. 751 of 2019
Decided On : 21-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr Gautam Joshi, Sr. Advocate With Mr Panam C Soni
For the Opponent : Ms Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Government Pleader With Ms Aishvarya Gupta, AGP
IMPORTANT POINT
Terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a civil contempt can be said to have been committed when there is a willful disobedience of any judgment, order, decree etc. In the said provision, civil contempt is defined to mean willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The disobedience of judgment or direction has to be willful. Willfulness is an element sine qua non to constitute the disobedience a contempt under the law. Willful disobedience implies on part of the alleged contempner, an intentional conduct or motive, not to comply with the order or direction of the Court
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2 – Applicant – Disobedience of order of Court – Willful disobedience - In the event, a judgment is appealed against and the appellate court has stayed it or passed some interim protective order in favour of the appellant, one cannot allege contempt in respect of the judgment which may have been relied on in the judgment appeal against and stayed or subjected to an interim or a restraint order - It can be said to be creating a situation analogous to implied overruling as impliedly overruled judgment cannot be implemented or acted upon. In such scenario and circumstances, essential ingredient of “willful disobedience” is absent.
Facts of the case:
Captioned three Miscellaneous Civil Applications are filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court Since issue involved is same, all three applications are treated for disposal by this common order - Applicants of first two captioned Miscellaneous Civil Applications were original petitioners in Special Civil Application whereas applicants of third Miscellaneous Civil Application were petitioners of Special Civil Application Learned Single Judge allowed all the three writ petitions on granting prayers of petitioners which were in respect of extension of benefit of pension scheme to them.
Finding of the court:
Aforesaid circumstances and reasons supplied, it is difficult to hold for this Court that non-compliance of directions in common judgment can be said to be amounting to willful disobedience so as to result into contempt of Court within meaning - This Court is not persuaded to exercise its contempt jurisdiction - Present proceedings are closed by dismissing all three Miscellaneous Civil Applications - Notice in each Miscellaneous Civil Applications stand discharged.
Result: Applications dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
The captioned three Miscellaneous Civil Applications are filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Since the issue involved is same, all the three applications are treated for disposal by this common order.
1.1 The applicants of first two captioned Miscellaneous Civil Applications were the original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.3250 of 2009 whereas the applicants of third Miscellaneous Civil Application No.751 of 2019 were the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7557 of 2015. Learned Single Judge allowed all the three writ petitions on 29th June, 2017 granting the prayers of the petitioners which were in respect of extension of benefit of pension scheme to them.
2. It appears that in the very subject several writ petitions were filed and came to be allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in all the petitions became subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in State of Gujarat v. Kalhans Harial Patel being Letters Patent Appeal No.2259 of 2017 and group of total 49 Appeals decided as per common judgment dated 02nd May, 2019. All these Appeals of the State Government came to be dismissed, and resultantly all the applicants-petitioners stood entitled to the benefit of pension scheme.
2.1 The operative portion of the common judgment dated 02nd May, 2019 in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra), as recorded in paragraph No.15 of the judgment, is extracted here-in-below.
“15. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges in the respective Letters Patent Appeals are confirmed. The State authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the pension scheme to all the respondents in view of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 from the date of their respective retirement. The respondents who have not refunded/repaid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund, their case be considered by the authorities by paying the amount of pension after adjusting/setting off the amount of Contributory Provident Fund payable by the respondents. In case of the respondents who have refunded/repaid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund, they shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of pension from the date of their repaying/refunding the amount of Contributory Provident Fund. The respective parties shall act upon these directions and implement the same within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Civil Applications also stand disposed of accordingly.”
2.2 Thus, as per the above directions in the common judgment in the group of Letters Patent Appeals in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra), while confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions, the Division Bench directed the opponent authorities to grant the benefit of pension scheme to all the applicants before it–the original petitioners, in view of the Government Resolution dated 15th October, 1984. The benefits were directed to be granted from the respective dates of retirement of the petitioners. It is further provided in the order under contempt that the respondents in the Letters Patent Appeals who have not refunded or repaid the amount of contributory provident fund, their case would be considered by the authorities by paying the payment of pension after adjusting the amount of contributory provident fund. Those employees who have refunded the amount of contributory provident fund are entitled to earn interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of pension from the date of their refunding of the contributory provident fund.
3. By filing the present Miscellaneous Civil Applications, the applicants have prayed to initiate the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the opponent authorities on the ground that there has been willful and deliberate disobedience of the said judgment dated 02nd May, 2019. It is also prayed
