SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(HP) 26

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
H.S.THAKUR
NAROTAM DUTT - Appellant
Versus
H.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 1982
Decided On : 06/27/1983

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Shri Chhabil Das, Advocate. For the Respondents:Shri J. L. Gupta, Advocate with Shri D. K. Khanna, Advocate.

Wilful disobedience of a court order, motivated by improper or corrupt motives, is required to establish contempt of court.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - CONSIDERATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION - ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - MOTIVE AND INTENT - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, promoted to ad-hoc posts, sought reversion to regular posts and consideration for promotion to senior scale stenographers as per court order. The respondents, citing a fire incident and subsequent loss of records, claimed to have considered the petitioners' cases but found them unsuitable for senior scale stenographers due to their absence from the post and suitability for head-clerk positions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had considered the petitioners' cases for promotion but erred in taking into account their subsequent performance as head clerks, which was not permissible under the law. However, the court held that this error did not amount to wilful disobedience or corrupt motive, as required for contempt proceedings.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court's order to consider the petitioners for promotion to senior scale stenographers? 2. Whether the respondents' consideration of the petitioners' cases, taking into account their subsequent performance, amounted to contempt of court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents' error in considering the petitioners' subsequent performance was an error of judgment but not a wilful error motivated by improper or corrupt motives. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S. S. Roy v. State of Orissa, which held that mere error of judgment or excess of authority, without wilful culpability or corrupt motive, does not constitute contempt of court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the respondents' actions, though not approved, did not warrant liability under the Contempt of Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

H. S. Thakur, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondents for the disobedience of the order of this Court.

2. The relevant facts for determining this petition may be stated. The petitioners filed a writ petition No. 336 of 1976, which was decided on September 11, 1981. For the purpose of deciding this contempt petition, it is sufficient to reproduce the operative portion of the judgment which runs as under : "For the foregoing reasons and observations, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be forced to work against the promoted posts on ad-hock basis and can legitimately claim their reversion to their regular posts of Junior Scale Stenographers. They are further entitled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Senior Scale Stenographers in accordance with the then existing rules and regulation. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.” It is contended by the petitioners that the aforesaid orders were also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated November 18, 1981 in Latters Patent Appeals Nos. 34 and 35 of 1981. The relevant portion of the judgment may be reproduced".......The direction is thus only for considering the case of the respondents writ petitioners for promotion to the posts of Senior Scale Stenographers in accordance with the rules and regulations which were applicable at the relevant time. We find absolutely no infirmity with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal in limine."

3. It is stated by the petitioners that as many as 18 posts of Senior Scale Stenographers had been upgraded by the H. P. State Electricity Board and the petitioners being senior-most Junior Scale Stenographers were eligible to be considered for promotion to Senior Scale Stenographers posts a the time of the first promotions made on 9th June, 1976. It is further stated that they requested the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for the posts of senior Scale Stenographers. According to them, several reminders and representations were also sent to the State Electricity Board but they have not been given their dues nor the orders of this Court have been implemented As such, they have asserted that this amounts to grave misconduct and disobedience of the orders of this Court and the respondents are liable for having committed the contempt of the court. The petitioners have also filed copies of letters, applications and representations sent by them to the authorities of the State Electricity Board.

4. The respondents have filed reply to the petition, on the affidavit of Shri K. C. Gupta, Secretary, R P. State Electricity Board, Simla. In the affidavit, it is denied that any contempt of the court has been committed. It is further deposed that the respondents have the highest regard for the directions given by the court. It is also deposed that there was a fire in the office of the Board Secretariat on 6th March, 1982 wherein the entire record was burnt and even the confidential reports were completely destroyed. On this account, it is asserted that the consideration of the case has taken some time. It is stated that the Board has considered the claims of the petitioners along with other eligible persons belonging to their category. It is pointed out that the Departmental Promotion Committee (D. P. C.) found that on account of their long absence from the post of stenographer and working on the posts of head-clerks, the petitioners were not found suitable for the post of Senior Scale Stenographers but have been found suitable for promotion to the posts of Head-clerks. According to the respondents, this action is strict conformity with the provisions of the Rules. It is further deposed that the Board framed the Regulations called, "The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1972," and that these regulations were framed under Section 19 of the Electricity Su








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top