Willful disobedience in contempt proceedings requires established intent; mere disagreement with a decision does not constitute contempt.

JUDGMENT :

D. K. Singh, J.

The present contempt petition has been filed for alleged non-compliance and willful disobedience of the judgment dated 16.09.2022 passed in W. P(C) No. 22732/2022.

Judgment dated 16.09.2022 is extracted hereunder: -

“This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- i. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing Respondents to give notional appropriate rank and pay scale to the petitioners as per the recommendations of the 5th central pay commission.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing Respondents, taking note of the directions and findings in Exhibits-P1 and P8 judgments and release the monetary benefits to the rank of Warrant Officer due to the petitioners within the time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASGI appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits in the rank of Warrant Officer and the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent with Ext.P4 representation claiming the benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court including Exts P1 and P8 to contend that the benefits are liable to be granted. Having heard the learned ASGI, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the judgments produced by the petitioner as well. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this contempt petition submits that this court, in the judgment dated 16.09.2022, directed the 2nd respondent/contemnor to take the decision on Ext.P4 representation of the petitioner after taking note of the judgments produced by the petitioner.

3. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering the judgments produced along with the writ petition, has decided the representation of the petitioner vide the order dated 31.01.2024 and therefore, the 2nd respondent/contemnor has willfully disobeyed the judgment and direction passed by this Court in W.P (C) No. 22732/2022 dated 16.09.2022.

4. The petitioner had filed W.P(C) No. 22732/2022, praying for a direction to give him a notional appropriate rank and pay scale as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. It is further stated in this writ petition that there was a discriminatory practice between the Assam Rifles Employees and their counterpart in other central Paramilitary Forces, with regard to the rank and pay structure.

5. The Government of India, by the Gazette notification dated 29.08.1986, implemented the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay Commission, and in the said pay commission, the personnel of Assam Rifles were given the pay scale as applicable to other Central Paramilitary forces. Accordingly, the pay scale of the Operator Radio Lines (ORL), to which category the petitioner belongs was fixed as under:-

6. However, the pay scale as indicated above in the chart was not implemented in the Assam Rifles as the technical staff were not given the post as per the 4th Central Pay Commission’s recommendation and the pay scale in Assam Rifles remained as under:-

7. Thereafter, the recommendation of the 5th pay commission was implemented with effect from 01.04.1996. Under the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, all technical posts were re-designated, and the pay scales were revised. It is further submitted that in all paramilita