Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
K.S. Jhaveri, Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Ram Karan Meena – Appellant
Versus
Milind A. Kharat – Respondent
Civil Contempt Petition No. 665 of 2015
Decided On : 17-05-2018
P.P. Malhotra, Saugath Roy, Siddhanth Jain.
In cases involving contempt of court, the court may grant relief to the petitioner even if the petitioner is not entitled to the full relief sought, if the court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ARTICLE 14, 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREVIOUS ORDER AND THE GRANTING OF NOTIONAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had been fighting for his rights for a long time, filed a contempt petition seeking the implementation of a previous court order. The Supreme Court had passed several orders in the matter, including deferring the contempt proceedings and requesting the High Court to decide the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court noted that the petitioner had been starving for more than 26 years due to the respondent institution's inaction and that the counsel for the respondents had threatened the local counsel and the court with contempt of the Supreme Court's order.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the full benefits of the promotion that his immediate juniors had received, including arrears and pension. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief at all, given that the promotion was a selection post and he had not gone through the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be granted only notional benefits and no arrears. The court reasoned that the promotion was a selection post and that the petitioner had not gone through the selection process. However, the court also noted that the petitioner had been waiting for his promotion for over 26 years and that the respondent institution had been abusing and misusing the court proceedings.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the petition and discharged the notices. The court directed the respondent institution to pay the petitioner the notional benefits and the arrears of pension by August 15, 2018. The court also directed the petitioner to reimburse the respondent institution Rs. 1,10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
1. Pursuant to the suggestion of the Court Mr. P.P. Malhotra Senior Counsel appeared and he has put amicable solution of the matter.
2. By way of this contempt proceedings, the petitioner has prayed for implementation of the order of this Court. The petitioner has been fighting for his right for quite a some time.
3. Different orders came to be passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court:-
On 5th September, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed the following order:-
"Let the matter be listed on 6.9.2017 before the appropriate Bench as per roster subject to removal of defects, if any."
4. Again on 6th September, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
"Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being."
5. Thereafter, on 21st September, 2017 the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
"When the matter came up before this Court for admission, the court passed the following order on 06.09.2017:-
Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being."
In response to the above order, the petitioner has failed an affidavit, in which it is stated that respondent no. 1 has superannuated on 31.05.2016, the learned senior counsel submits that his immediate junior was promoted as Scale-II officer and thereafter in 2007, on the basis of a selection process, he was promoted to the Scale-III officer and retired in the year 2010. The learned senior counsel further submits that since respondent no. 1 did not go through the process of selection, the petitioner is prepared to grant all benefits which have been granted to the Scale-II Officer - Mr. S.K. Gautam, his immediate junior, upto 2007. But what would be the fate of the officer after 2007, the learned senior counsel is not in a position to respond. It is submitted that the respondent has not gone through the selection process, further promotions cannot be granted. However, it is submitted that in case respondent no. 1 appears before this Court, some equitable relief can be worked out.
Issue notice, returnable on 11.10.2017, on the condition that the litigation expenses of respondent no. 1 shall be borne by the petitioner. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Contempt proceedings will be deferred for the time being."
6. Again on 12th October, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
"In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondents seeking adjournment for filing reply affidavit, list after two weeks."
7. On 13th November, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
"List on 20.11.2017."
8. Again on 20th November, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
"Learned counsel for the respondents has today handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner a calculation of the benefits which the immediate juniors have received. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks a week's time to verify the same."
9. Thereafter, on 22nd January, 2018, the Supreme Court has passed following order:-
