IMPORTANT POINT
In 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

ORDER :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

The above two Miscellaneous Civil Applications filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, have similar facts and common order. They both therefore are treated together for disposal by this common order.

2. In first captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application, the applicant has prayed to initiate contempt proceedings in respect of order dated 09th July, 2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.16812 of 2016 which was a common order in Special Civil Application Nos.19369 of 2018, 16812 of 2016, 5373 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.2244 of 2018. The writ petition of the applicant of the first Miscellaneous Civil Application was Special Civil Application No.16812 of 2016 whereas that of the second applicant was Special Civil Application No.2244 of 2018.

2.1 In those petitions, the petitioners prayed to direct the opponent authorities to give benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme by transferring the petitioners from Contributory Provident Fund to General Provident Fund. It was further prayed to give benefit of pension scheme to them under Resolution dated 15th October, 1984 and to start paying monthly pension. The petitioners were the Lecturers. While allowing both the petitions, decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Kalhans Harial Patel being Letters Patent Appeal No.2259 of 2017 and other cognate total 49 Letters Patent Appeals came to be relied on. The Court granted relief issuing directions to give the benefit of General Provident Fund, pension scheme. The same directions were passed as were passed in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra).

3. It may be noted that against the aforesaid common order in four Special Civil Applications, Letters Patent Appeal No.87 of 2020 and others were filed, which resulted into dismissal of the said Letters Patent Appeals as per common order dated 21st January, 2020. The judgment in the respective writ petitions stood confirmed. The applicants-the original petitioners have complained of willful breach and therefore contempt of the Courts Act as the directions have not been complied with.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shah for the applicants, whereas learned Government Pleader Ms.Manisha Lavkumar with learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Aishvarya Gupta appeared on advance copy, in both the applications.

5. As noticed above, in both the cases, the judgment and the directions brought under contempt is based on the decision of the Division Bench in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra). Now, in the group of Miscellaneous Civil Applications being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.798 of 2019 with Miscellaneous Civil Application No.751 of 2019 with Miscellaneous Civil Application No.824 of 2019 decided separately by common judgment of even date, the directions in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra) were brought under contempt and the question considered was whether the non-compliance of the said directions amounted to willful disobedience and therefore contempt of the court.

5.1 This Court held in the aforesaid judgment that there was no willful breach of the directions in view of the decision in Kalhans Harial Patel (supra) and other cognate maters having been pending before the Apex Court by way of filing of Special Leave Petitions and in view of orders passed in those Special Leave Petitions. Those Miscellaneous Civil Applications were dismissed and the proceedings were closed.

5.2 Learned advocate for the applicants in the present cases also could not dispute the position that similar set of facts and contentions arise in these two matters and that the decision in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.798 of 2019 and two other cognate matters mentioned above would apply to the cases on hand.

6. In that view, the discussion and the reasoning in the aforesaid judgment dated 21st September, 2020 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.798 of 2020 and two other Miscellaneous Civil Applications would apply and the same a