Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 64
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sangeet Lodha, Mahendar Kumar Goyal, JJ.
Indu Lal Jangid – Appellant
Versus
Ramavtar Jain and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 132 of 2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 280 of 2017 in B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4442 of 2003
Decided On : 29-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shiv Charan Gupta
For the Respondents:Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ajay Raj Tantia, Ganesh Meena, AAG
A party's submission of false declarations and undertakings to the court constitutes contempt of court and can result in dismissal of a contempt petition.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1989 - SECTION 27A - VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER - FALSE DECLARATION - UNDERTAKING - BACK WAGES - EXECUTION OF TRIBUNAL ORDER - REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a lecturer at a school managed by Respondent No. 1, was terminated from service in 1997. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal ordered his reinstatement in 2002, subject to certain conditions. The High Court upheld the reinstatement but denied back wages. On appeal, the High Court directed the school to pay back wages if the petitioner submitted an undertaking that he had not worked elsewhere during the relevant period. The petitioner submitted an undertaking, but the school alleged that it was false and that he had worked at several other institutions. The petitioner admitted to working at some of these institutions, claiming it was for his livelihood.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the petitioner had submitted false declarations and undertakings regarding his employment history, deliberately misleading the court. Therefore, the school could not be held in contempt for not paying back wages as the petitioner had not fulfilled the condition of submitting a true and correct undertaking.
Issues: 1. Whether the school violated the court's order by not paying back wages to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's false declarations and undertakings amounted to contempt of court? 3. Whether the petitioner could seek execution of the tribunal's order under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The school's liability to pay back wages was contingent upon the petitioner submitting a true and correct undertaking regarding his employment history. 2. The petitioner's submission of false declarations and undertakings constituted a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and amounted to contempt of court. 3. The petitioner could seek execution of the tribunal's order through the remedies provided under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed. The petitioner was advised to seek execution of the tribunal's order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 21.3.2018 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 280/2017.
2. The facts as emerge from the record are that the services of the petitioner, who was working as Lecturer with Balika Senior Secondary School being run and managed by the respondent no. 1-Management Committee of Shri Ram Rikhdas Poddar Balika Vidhya Mandir (for brevity-"the institution") were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1997 vide order dated 31.5.1997. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (for brevity- "the Tribunal") vide its order dated 1.5.2002 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, set aside the order dated 31.5.1997, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service and actual monetary benefits subject to condition that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary for the period he has served anywhere else for which he was required to furnish an undertaking with the respondent-institution. The writ petition no. 4442/2003 preferred by the institution against the order dated 1st May, 2002 came to be decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.12.2016, whereby maintaining the order of reinstatement, the petitioner was held not entitled for the back wages from the date of termination order till the date of the judgment i.e. 15.12.2016. The D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 280/2017 preferred by the petitioner herein, came to be allowed by the division bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.2018 whereby the petitioner was held entitled for back wages, subject to furnishing an undertaking within 30 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order; failing which, it was held that he would not be entitled for back wages up-to the date of order passed by the Tribunal. It was further directed that for the subsequent period also, an undertaking of the similar nature would be furnished within the period given above, failing which the wages after the order of the Tribunal would also not be admissible.
3. Alleging that in spite of submitting the requisite undertaking by him, the respondents have violated the aforesaid directions, the appellant has preferred the present contempt petition.
4. The respondent no. 1 in its reply to the contempt petition stated that in pursuance of the direction dated 21.3.2018, the petitioner submitted the declaration dated 23.3.2018 stating falsely that he has not worked anywhere else except for the period from 5.12.1997 to 30.4.1998 and from 7.9.1999 to 16.5.2000; whereas, apart from the aforesaid period, he has worked from 15.10.2008 to 16.12.2010 at Shri Dedraj Khaitan Higher Secondary School Losal, District Sikar, from 10.9.2012 to 16.05.2013 at Radhakrishan Maru Senior Secondary School, Sikar and from 16.10.2015 to 5.2.2016 at Shanti Niketan Senior Secondary School, Shiot Bady, Sikar.
5. Petitioner in his rejoinder dated 13.8.2019 submitted that he has filed the declaration dated 23.3.2018 as directed by this Court vide its order dated 21.3.2018, which he has placed on record as Annexure-P/3 along with his additional affidavit dated 8.5.2019. With regard to his working at three other institutions as detailed by the respondent no. 1 in its reply, although, the petitioner stated that in the earlier contempt petition no. 235/2017 filed by him for non-compliance of order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2016, the respondent no. 1 has not taken any such plea in its reply and for the first time, the institution has come with this new plea; but, admitted that he has worked with the additional three institutions as it was for earning of his basic livelihood for his children.
6. The order dated 30.10.2019 passed in this contempt petition, records categorical statement of the petitioner that except the three spells pointed out by the respondent no. 1 in its reply apart from the two spells already mentioned in the decla
