Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 402 (MP)

Satish Shrivastava v. M. K. Varshney

2016-05-12

S.K.PALO

body2016
ORDER : S.K. Palo, J. 1. This contempt petition under sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming that respondents have not complied with the order dated 18-7-2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3328/2012(S). Hence, prayed to punish the contemners and direct them to comply with the directions issued by this Court granting benefits of Dearness Allowance applicable to the Central Government employees in the pay scale of Rs. 16,750-20500/-; benefit of pay fixation as per provisions of M. P. Fundamental Rules 22-D with effect from 28-8-2003 and further benefit of merger of 50% D.A. with basic pay as per Rules, 2003 with effect from 1-4-2004 and lo pay entire errears of pay, pension, re-fixation of pay and pension of the petitioner and also the consequential reliefs. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3328/2012 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India claiming himself to be a Retired Member Judge of Industrial Court of Madhya Pradesh claiming the benefit of pay fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 16,750-20,500/- notionally with effect from 1-1-1996 and accordingly to fix his pension and to provide Dearness Allowance in tune of Rules of 2003. This writ petition was disposed on 18-7-2013 with a specific direction to the respondents, which read as under:— “11. In view of the discussion herein above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of recovery as directed against the petitioner vide PPO dated 28th June, 2011 (Annexure P/17) amounting to Rs. 77,321/- (Rs. Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to fix the salary of the petitioner in accordance to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22(D) in appropriate manner w.e.f. 28-8-2003 and to restore tin payment of DA as per notification and DA applicable to the Central Government employees in terms of the Rules 9 and 12 of Rules, 2003. After revising the salary in the appropriate manner, the arrears be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-4-2004 and pension of the petitioner be calculated accordingly and fresh PPO be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. After revising the salary in the appropriate manner, the arrears be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-4-2004 and pension of the petitioner be calculated accordingly and fresh PPO be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. If any amount is due to be paid as arrears to the petitioner, the same be paid within the aforesaid period.” 3. The petitioner further claimed that this order was not complied with by the respondents and, therefore, committed contempt of the direction of this Court. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has filed compliance report on 10-9-2015 and while replying the contentions tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology for any inadvertent act or omission on his part, which may amount to contempt of lawful authority and jurisdiction of this Court. He further claimed that he has highest regards for the order passed by this Court and even cannot think of disobeying the same. He claimed that he has not violated in any manner, whatsoever, as alleged by the petitioner. He further contends that in compliance of said order the State Government has issued the revised PPO in favour of the petitioner in terms of order passed by this Court and by fixing the salary in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-D w.e.f. 28-8-2003 and to restore the payment of D.A. as per notification and applicable as per Rules 9 and 12 of Rules of 2003. This reply has been supported by an affidavit of M.K. Varshney, Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Bhopal. He also annexed copy of PRO (Annexure-R-1) and communication made by the Treasury’ Officer, Gwalior to Central Bank contained in Annexure-R-2 and the Tabular Chat (Annexure-R-3) showing various payments made to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court, which show that arrears to the tune of Rs. 24,06,868/- has been paid to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, respondent No. 2, while answering the averments made in the contempt petition, has denied all allegations and stated that as per direction of this Court salary of the petitioner has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-D in proper manner w.e.f. 28-8-2003 and to restore payment of dearness allowance as per notification application to the Central Government employees in terms of Rules 9 and 12 of Rules, 2003. More so, the consequential orders have also been passed. It is also claimed that no case has been made out warranting of initiation of contempt proceeding against the answering respondents. However, he has extended unconditional apology for any inadvertent act or omission on his part, which may amount to contempt of lawful authority or jurisdiction of this Court. He further contended that petition is baseless and deserves to be dismissed and the rule nisi issued against the petitioner be discharged in the interest of justice. The respondent No. 2-Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Government of Madhya Pradesh has submitted an affidavit in support of the reply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder on 28-10-2015 and claimed that respondents ignored to comply with the orders correctly. The petitioner claimed that pension calculated is wrong. It is stated that pension fixed at the rate of Rs. 8,542/- p.m. ought to have been fixed to the tune of Rs. 12,813/-w.e.f. 1-10-2004 and the pension fixed at the rate of Rs. 19,306/- per month with effect from 1-1-2006 ought to have been fixed at Rs. 31,515/- and pension of Rs. 34,688/- w.e.f. 7-9-2014 by raising 10% quantum. This fixation, therefore, is not in letter and spirit of the Court order dated 18-7-2013. The petitioner submits that respondents have not made full payment, therefore, they are not complying with the order of this Court. 7. Heard the rival contentions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. In the case of Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others v. Professor Ram Sevak Yadav and others, (2008) 14 SCC 115 the Apex Court has held as under:- “The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been brought to the statute book to define the limit and powers of certain Courts punishing for contempt of Court and it has laid down the procedure for exercise of such powers. Under the Act and Article 129 of the Constitution, if it is alleged before the Supreme Court that a pet son has wilfully violated its order, it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is true or not, and if found to be true, it can punish the officers for having committed “civil contempt’’ and if need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement or execution of the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. While exercising its power under the Act, it is not open to the Court to pass an order which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When the Court directs an authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, mere error of judgment with regard to legal position cannot constitute contempt of Court. There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order. ” 9. The respondents have passed appropriate order which was annexed to the reply. They have placed on record relevant document relating to fixation and arrears. However, the petitioner is not satisfied with the same and calculation of fixation order according to him it is not correct, as it is not in accordance with the order of this Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that a deliberate circumvention and dubious method was adopted by the contesting respondent to avoid implementation of the order of this Court. 10. In the light of the discussion, it can safely be stated that no substantial relief can be granted in contempt petition, which would materially alter or add to the original order. 11. In Manjula Choudhary v. Priyanka Chauhan, 2015 (4) M.P.L.J. 704 the Division Bench of this Court has held as under :- “Once an order is passed by the authority in compliance of the directions issued by the Court whether rightly or wrongly, fresh cause of action arises for seeking redressal before an appropriate forum unless and until it is established that the order of compliance is in fact in blatant violation of the directions of the Court. Such an order cannot be considered to be a wilful violation of the previous order passed by the Court nor can the Court exec using jurisdiction in contempt proceedings consider the validity of the order on merits. ” Reference in this regard can also be made to the decision rendered in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 . 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case it is apparent that by the impugned order the learned Single Judge has directed to consider the petitioner’s pay fixation and compute the pension as per rules. The respondents, pursuant to order of this Court, have fixed the salary notionally and consequential pension. The authority in compliance of directions issued by this Court have decided and passed an order, which is said to be right as per respondents and wrong as per petitioner. However, a fresh cause of action arise for seeking redressal before appropriate forum unless and until I it is established that the order of compliance is in fact in blatant violation of directions of the Court. The rival contentions of the parties and validity of the impugned order are to be considered in the light of decision in the case of J.S. Parihar (supra). 13. In the light of above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents is made out. Consequently, the contempt petition proceedings are dropped and petition is hereby dismissed. The respondents are discharged. Before parting with the case, it is worth mentioning here that the petitioner is at liberty to resort to separate proceeding, if so advised. In other words, dismissal of this petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the respondent subsequent to disposal of Writ Petition No. 3328/2012.