Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, J.
Raghunath Rai
Versus
P.Sahai
Criminal Original No. 175 of 1966,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 21, 1967
CONTEMPT OF COURT - DECLARATORY DECREE - DISREGARD - EXECUTION - RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - REINSTATEMENT - SALARY - STAY OF OPERATION - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a railway employee, was removed from service in 1953. He filed a suit for a declaration that the order of his removal was void and he was entitled to all emoluments. The trial court decreed in his favor in 1964, and the first appellate court upheld the decree in 1964. The Union of India filed a regular second appeal in 1964. Petitioner applied for an early hearing of the appeal, but the court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner was entitled to receive his salary in view of the decree and could approach the court if it was not paid. Petitioner sent a copy of the order to the Divisional Superintendent of the Railway, who replied that the question of payment of dues did not arise as the appeal was pending. Petitioner filed a contempt petition against the General Manager and the Divisional Superintendent for flouting the decree of the lower court and ignoring the observations of the court in the order dismissing the application for early hearing. The Divisional Superintendent stated that he had taken legal advice and was informed that payment of dues was not required as the appeal was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the refusal to pay the petitioner's emoluments on being asked for the same did not amount to deliberate disregard of the decree of the lower appellate court. The court noted that the decree was merely declaratory and did not require any action to be taken by the respondents. The court also noted that respondent No. 2 was not a party to the decree in his personal capacity or even in his official capacity. The court further noted that the petitioner had obtained a stay of the operation of the declaratory decree from the court, and that the petitioner had expressly stated that he would not insist on his right under the decree till the hearing of the Regular Second Appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the refusal to pay the petitioner's emoluments amounted to deliberate disregard of the decree of the lower appellate court? 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was guilty of contempt of court for disregarding the observations contained in the court's order dismissing the application for early hearing?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A mere declaratory decree does not require any action to be taken by the respondents. 2. A party is not guilty of contempt of court in ignoring a declaratory order of the court unless he is bound by or named in the order or the process of the court requires him to act in accordance with it. 3. Contempt proceedings cannot be used as a lever for obtaining speedy execution of even executable decrees instead of resorting to the normal procedure prescribed by law for executing such decrees. 4. Mere delay in implementing a decree cannot be deemed in all cases to amount to a contemptuous disregard of the decree.
Final Decision: The rule nisi issued against respondent No. 2 was discharged, and no order was made as to costs.
1. The circumstances which have given rise to the filing of this petition for contempt proceedings against the respondent, may first be surveyed.
2. Raghunath Rai petitioner was removed from Government service on 22.11.1953. He filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of his removal from service was void and he was entitled to all the emoluments etc. on that basis. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 5.06.1964. While dismissing the first appeal of the Union of India against the decree of the trial Court, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar held on 10.09.1964, that the order of petitioners removal from service was illegal and ultra vires Art. 311 of the Constitution and the petitioner was, therefore, deemed to be in the service of the Railway Administration and was entitled to all the benefits and emoluments attached to his post.
3. Against the aforesaid decree of the first appellate Court, the Union of India filed Regular Second Appeal No. 4 of 1965 on 21.12.1964. In an application of the petitioner (C. M. No. 1647 C of 1965) for fixing the Regular Second appeal for hearing on some early actual date, I passed the following order on 27.09.1965 :
"The only ground on which an early hearing is prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent is that Raghunath Rai, respondent is not being reinstated by the Union of India in spite of a declaration having been granted in his favour by the trial Court on the 5th of June, 1964 and the same having been upheld by the first appellate Court on 10.09.1964. The decree in favour of the respondent declares that the order of termination of his services is illegal and void. The apprehension of the respondent does not appear to be justified. The petitioner is entitled to receive his salary in view of the decree of the Courts below and if this is not paid to him he can approach this Court for necessary action. There is no ground for expediting the hearing of this appeal out of its normal turn and C. M. No. 1647-C of 1965 is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs".
4. The above said order was passed in the presence of counsel for both sides. It appears that the petitioner who was present in Court at that time, took notes of the order and sent a copy of what he thought was the order, to respondent No. 2 with petitioners letter, dated 17.03.1966. The office of the second respondent (Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Ferozepore) sent letter, dated 11.04.1966 (Annexure C) in reply to the petitioners representation, dated 17.03.1966, in the following words : -
"As the appeal filed by the Union of India is pending in the Punjab High Court, the question of payment of any dues does not arise at present".
5. On 18.04.1966, the present petition u/s. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, was filed, wherein it was alleged that Shri P. Sahai, General Manager, Northern Railway, and Shri K. L. Bery, Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway, Ferozepore, had committed contempt of the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar by flouting the decree of that Court, the operation of which had not been stayed. The petitioner has further complained that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court in ignoring the observations contained in my order, dated 27.09.1965 (quoted in an earlier part of this judgment). In para. 7 of the petition a reference was made to some alleged oral observations made by me at the time of the passing of the order, dated 27.09.1965. The prayer for trying and punishing the above-named respondents for the aforesaid alleged contempt was made on that basis.
6. When on 11.11.1966, this petition came up before me for motion hearing, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had strongly deprecated the practice of making reference in petitions to the alleged oral observations of Judges during the hearing of cases. Mr. M. R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
