1

Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 120 of 2022

Appellant :- Shre Prem Singh

Respondent :- Sh. Pyare Lal

Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Dhar Shukla

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1.

This Intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the legality,

propriety and correctness of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2218 of 2022

(Pyare Lal Vs. Prem Singh, The Executive Engineer) whereby and

whereunder exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

the learned Single Judge, holding that prima-facie a case for contempt is

made out has proceeded to frame charge against the appellant. Moreover,

the learned Single Judge has also directed the appellant to reply to the

show cause as to why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated

against him for alleged violation of the order dated 13.01.2021 passed in

Writ (A) No.47405 of 2016.

2.

It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is legally not sustainable as it exceeds

the jurisdiction conferred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The

writ court vide its order dated 13.01.2021 had allowed the writ petition

and issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the

petitioner's claim for regularization in terms of the Rules of

Regularization adopted by the respondents corporation treating the

petitioner's services to be uninterrupted since the year 1977, on the post of

Lineman. The writ court further directed that the petitioner's claim for

grant of retiral benefits shall also be considered in terms of the

determination so made by the authority concerned and consequential

benefits will be given to him within a further period of two months

thereafter. The appellant in compliance of the direction of the writ court

2

passed a detailed/reasoned order dated 13.08.2021 and granted approval

for regularization of the petitioner on the basis of Office Memo dated

02.07.2013 and on the same terms and conditions on which the persons

similarly situated like petitioner were granted approval for regularization

on 12.03.2013 on the post of workmen/coolie. The writ petitioner, instead

of assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 13.08.2021 in

appropriate proceedings, chose to invoke the contempt jurisdiction and

the learned Single Judge travelling beyond the order of the writ court of

which the breach was complained of, has proceeded to pass the impugned

order. The learned Single Judge has traversed beyond the order of the writ

court and the impugned order is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. The

contempt jurisdiction ought not to have been exercised as there is no

deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the writ court. It is

accordingly prayed that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is

liable to be set aside and the contempt petition itself be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court dated 17.02.2014

passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 77 of 2014; Decision dated

27.10.2015 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 707 of 2015;

Decision dated 12.02.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 1225 of 2019;

and decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 399

(Midnapore Peoples' Coop Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda

and others).

3.

A preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Intra

Court Appeal has been raised by the learned counsel representing the

applicant/respondent. He submits that the order of the learned Single

Judge merely proceeds to frame charge and to answer the show cause as

to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him. Such an

order being purely interlocutory and not affecting the rights of the

appellant in terms of punishing him for contempt, an appeal under

Cha