Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Ram Kishan – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Tarun Bajaj & Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2013 In Civil Appeal No. 4985 of 2012
Decided On : 17-01-2014
AIR 1992 SC 2153; AIR 2001 SC 3468; AIR 2002 SC 1405; AIR 2004 SC 942; (2010) 3 SCC 705; AIR 2013 SC 1299 - Relied upon
(b) Words and Phrases - Wilful act - Is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently - It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily - Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. (Para 10)
(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Order disobeyed because of compelling circumstances making compliance of order impossible - Contemnor cannot be punished - "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct". (Para 10)
AIR 1985 SC 582; AIR 1989 SC 2185; AIR 1995 SC 308; AIR 2000 SC 1880; AIR 2004 SC 105; AIR 2006 SC 258; (2013) 9 SCC 753 - Relied upon
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Two interpretations possible - Action not contumacious - Contempt proceeding not maintainable. (Para 13)
AIR 1989 SC 2071; AIR 2001 SC 1293 - Relied upon
(e) Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Element of willingness indispensible for establishing contempt. (Para 13)
AIR 2008 (Supp-2) SC 1837; AIR 2009 SC 735 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. was compulsorily retired. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004 and during its pendency, he reached the age of superannuation.
The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge quashing the impugned order but did not award the back wages to the applicant for the period he was out of job.
Ultimately the Supreme Court allowed reinstatement and back wages for the period he was out of job.
The applicant has not been given the benefit of re-designated pay/post and the pay-scale of a higher post wherein after the compulsory retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman Bhasin had been appointed and has been extended the benefit which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.
Hence this contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
No case is made out for initiating contempt proceeding.
Result: SLP dismissed.
Judgment :-
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant that the respondents, who are alleged contemnors herein, have wilfully violated the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 4985 of 2012 as the respondents failed to pay all consequential benefits of service as directed and thus, the respondents should be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) and further, to direct the contemnors to implement the order in its true spirit and fix his pension according to the post of Joint Secretary (Legal) and provide all its retirement benefits.
2. Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `Nigam’) was compulsorily retired vide an order dated 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004 and during its pendency, he reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2006. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2009 quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2003 but did not award the back wages to the applicant for the period he was out of job. The Nigam filed LPA No. 646 of 2009 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The applicant also filed LPA No. 542 of 2009 for claiming the arrears of pay. The LPA of Nigam was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 and has attained finality. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2009.
3. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the judgment and order dated 10.8.2009 of the Division Bench by filing the Special Leave Petition which was entertained as C.A. No. 4985 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 directing that the applicant shall be entitled to the back wages for the period during which he was out of job alongwith reinstatement. The applicant has not been given the benefit of re-designated pay/post and the pay- scale of a higher post wherein after the compulsory retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman Bhasin had been appointed w.e.f. 16.3.2005 and has been extended the benefit which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.
Hence, this Contempt Petition.
4. Shri Vikas Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has submitted that as the learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the applicant quashing the order of compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits except back wages and this Court allowed the appeal of the applicant and has given back wages also. The conjoint reading of both the orders tantamount to grant of all possible/permissible benefits to the applicant for his service. As the applicant was senior to Smt. Poonam Bhasin, he was entitled to the re-designated post as well as the salary for the post of Joint Secretary (Legal), which has been denied by the respondents. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for the claim and the respondents should be prosecuted and punished for disobedience of the said judgments and orders.
5. On the contrary, Shri Narender Hooda, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed the application contending that there is neither any direction of any court to give benefit of the revised post to the applicant, nor his candidature has ever been considered for that post. The State authority cannot be forced to pay the salary to two persons for one post. The applicant has never challenged the re-designation of Smt. Poonam Bhasin. Thus, there is no wilful disobedience of any order passed by this Court. The application for initiating the contempt proceedings is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by l
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh
Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P.
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman
Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao
Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana
Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa
M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha
State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur
Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.