Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 448 (HP)

Sunder Singh v. Shrikant Baldi

2013-05-20

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner has instituted this Contempt Petition praying that action be initiated against the respondents for non-implementation of the judgment of this Court passed in CWP(T) No.9886 of 2008. 2. Total 51 writ petitions (including the writ petition preferred by the petitioner) were tried by the Court and disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge by its judgment dated 11.3.2011 directing the respondents to pay and release the pension of the petitioners and similarly situate persons alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date of decision (after production of certified copy of the judgment by either of the parties). 3. Letter Patent Appeal No.504 of 2011 was preferred by the Board of Directors of Himachal Pradesh Milkfed, Shimla and the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Milkfed, Shimla, challenging this decision. 45 respondents and 3 proforma respondents (petitioners in writ petitions as noted above and the State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary(Finance), Director of Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh and the Registrars, Cooperative Societies Himachal Pradesh respondents in the writ petition, as noted above). That appeal was accepted by upholding the directions of the Hon’ble Single Judge and modifying the judgment so far as it relates to Annexure A-7. 4. Against this order, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.19650 of 2012 in the Supreme Court in which notice was issued by the Supreme Court by its order dated 23.7.2012 to the respondents therein and operation of the judgment in the Letter Patent Appeal No.504 of 2011 was stayed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that these interim orders do not apply to the petitioner herein for the reasons that he was not a party to the Letter Patent Appeal, the State had accepted the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge and no appeal was preferred and that the interim order passed by the Supreme Court inter alia relates to a part of the judgment, but does not in any manner affect the other rights of the petitioner which were adjudicated including the fact that the petitioner is entitled to pension. 6. I cannot accept this submission. 6. I cannot accept this submission. Since the judgment in the Civil Writ Petition was modified in the Latter Patent Appeal which judgment later has been challenged in the Supreme Court and interim order passed, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in contempt against the respondents. The jurisdiction of a Court lower in hierarchy in the Constitutional Scheme in order to yield the superior jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is not for this Court to correct, modify and vary any order passed by that Court or to place his own interpretation on that. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for appropriate orders or to obtain any clarification, (copy of the order of the Supreme Court has been placed on the record). 7. In Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. and Another vs. Sachidanand Dass and Another, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 465, the Supreme Court affirming the decision in State of J&K vs. Mohd.Yaqoob Khan, (1992)4 SCC 167 , holds:- “4. Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself as proper. If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge’s order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge’s order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceedings with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice. This is the view taken in State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan, (1992)4 SCC 167 . 5. In the present case, under the threat of proceedings of contempt, the appellants had to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal and the application for stay. The petitioners are confronted with a position where their stay application is virtually rendered infructuous by the steps they had to take on threat of contempt.” (p.466) 8. In these circumstances, I hold that no contempt is made out. Needless to add that the rights of the petitioner will be governed by any order/decision of the Supreme Court. The petition is disposed of.