Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 498 (MP)

Maya Devi Dewangan v. M. R. Meena

2016-06-23

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2016
ORDER : SUSHIL KUMAR PALO, J. 1. This Contempt Petition under section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the respondents have not been complied with the order dated 17-10-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13321/2011. 2. It is contended that in Writ Petition No. 13321/2011 relief was claimed for production of service records, to pay full salary, GPF, pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and for other reliefs deemed fit. 3. This Court vide order dated 17-10-2011 disposed of the above petition with the following directions : "In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent/authorities for mitigation of her grievance by filing a proper representation. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner does so along with a certified copy of the order passed today as well as a copy of the petition within two weeks from the date of obtaining the same, the respondent/authorities shall look into the same and pass orders expeditiously in accordance with law." 4. The petitioner claimed that he approached various authorities submitting representation for the pension, GPF and other retiral benefits of her husband Late R.D. Dewangan along with certified copy of the impugned order. The respondents wilfully and deliberately did not comply the said order to harass the petitioner. The said act of the respondents lowered the prestige of this Court, not only in the eyes of the employees but also the public at large. The petitioner prayed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and to punish them. 5. The respondents submitted that their reply on 9-1-2014 in which the above said contentions were denied. It is asserted that Late Shri R.D. Dewangan (husband of the petitioner) while serving in the post of Technical Assistant (Grade-II) at Seoni Depot of Food Corporation of India, had committed offence under section 409 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 5(2) and 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the year 1981, he was immediately put under suspension by the District Manager of Food Corporation of India, Jabalpur vide order dated 18-11-1981. This order was later confirmed by the Regional Senior Manager FCI, Bhopal by order dated 28-11-1981. During the year 1981, he was immediately put under suspension by the District Manager of Food Corporation of India, Jabalpur vide order dated 18-11-1981. This order was later confirmed by the Regional Senior Manager FCI, Bhopal by order dated 28-11-1981. The CBI after investigation registered offence against Late Shri R.D. Dewangan and filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur. He was then dismissed from his services and penalty was imposed on him on 20-12-1983. In Special Case No. 17/88 Shri Dewangan was sentenced for 5 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, he preferred an appeal. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2437/1997 which was decided by the High Court on 7-1-2009 and he was acquitted. 6. During the pendency of criminal appeal, he filed Writ Petition No. 3822/99 claiming terminal benefits which was disposed of by this Court on 25-10-1999 with a direction to pay admissible dues to the petitioner within three months. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any further amount which was communicated accordingly to him on 14-3-2000. 7. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred LPA No. 17/00 which was subsequently dismissed on 9-9-2005 by this Court. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, Late Shri R.D. Dewangan filed the Writ Petition No. 6399/2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 9-5-2013. 8. Shri R.D. Dewangan died on 28-4-2009. After his death, his wife the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13321/2011 in which the above direction was issued. Earlier, when representation was filed by Shri Dewangan on 20-3-2012, entire retiral benefits was earlier given to him. He was communicated vide letter dated 14-3-2000 that final payment of CPF, difference of CPF, wage revision, etc including bonus was paid to him, therefore, nothing remains to be paid to him. 9. After order dated 17-10-201 1 passed by this Court on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, a speaking order dated 11-8-2013 was passed, which is shown as Ann. R/3. It is requested to drop, the contempt petition and the respondents be discharged. It is contented that the petitioner has not filed an affidavit in support of the contempt petition. 10. Having gone through the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial relief can be granted in contempt petition which would materially alter and add to the original order. 11. It is contented that the petitioner has not filed an affidavit in support of the contempt petition. 10. Having gone through the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial relief can be granted in contempt petition which would materially alter and add to the original order. 11. The respondents have passed an representation which has been annexed with the reply. The petitioner is not satisfied with the same. It is said that the representation was to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Ann.R/3 was passed on 18-11-2013 which may be termed as a little late but the detailed order passed encompasses relevant facts and the reasons for disallowing the representation. 12. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that a deliberate circumvention and dubious method was adopted by the respondents to avoid implementation of the order of this Court. 13. 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 exercising jurisdiction in contempt proceedings consider the validity of the order on merits. " 14. Similarly, in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi 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 person 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 willfull disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order." 15. On the directions of this Court, the respondents have passed order (Ann.R/3) which is said to be right as per the respondents and wrong as per the petitioner. However, a fresh cause of action has arisen for seeking redressal before appropriate forum. 16. 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 arc 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 respondents subsequent to disposal of Writ Petition No. 13321/2011.