Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 763 (JK)

Shakuntla Singh v. Rajiv Mehrishi

2018-10-01

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This is petition for seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in its judgment dated 18.03.2015 passed in SWP No.1397/2013. 2. Few background facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition needs to be noticed. The husband of the petitioner late Sh. Ram Parkash Singh was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short). While he was serving in the Recruitment Training Centre (RTC) CRPF Humhama, Srinagar (J&K), he was transferred to 32 Bn. He challenged his order of transfer in SWP No.725/2001 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 28.05.2001 providing that the petitioner would file representation before the competent authority within one week and the same would be disposed of within two weeks thereafter. The representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction was turned down by the Director General CRPF. As the deceased in compliance to the order of his transfer had not reported for his duties to 32 Bn, accordingly, departmental proceedings for the charge of unauthorised absence from duties were initiated against him. On being found guilty in the departmental inquiry, the deceased was dismissed from the service and the period of his unauthorised absence was treated as dies non by the respondents. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner’s husband in SWP No.S-650/2005. The writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal impugned was quashed. The respondents, were, however, directed to pass a fresh order after complying with the Rules within a period of four months from the date a copy of order was served upon them. The respondents did not accept the judgment of the Single judge, therefore took the matter to the Division Bench in LPA(SW) No.199/2011. Learned Division Bench vide its judgment dated 22.11.2011 concluded that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the deceased husband of the petitioner were one sided and not a fair inquiry in its true sense and therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the quashing of order of dismissal dated 18.03.2004 ordered by the learned writ court. Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the quashing of order of dismissal dated 18.03.2004 ordered by the learned writ court. Having upheld the quashing of order of dismissal of the husband of the petitioner by the writ Court and because of impossibility of initiating fresh inquiry against the delinquent due to his death, learned Division Bench, with a view to maintain equitable balance held the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased entitled to monetary benefits which would have accrued to them had the petitioner not been dismissed from the service. The operative portion of directions contained in the Paragraph No. 34 of the judgment of the Division Bench needs to be reproduced here as under:- “As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that the instant appeal stands is missed being devoid of any merit in it. The appellants are directed to release the entire amount as depicted in Annexure-F (Pension calculation Chart) in favour of respondent no.1, the widow of the deceased, within two months from today. Any delay in it shall call for a stern action.” 3. In compliance to the direction of the Division Bench, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad issued a detailed order bearing No.J.II-32/2012/Estt-3 dated 22.03.2012. The amounts which were payable to the petitioner were disbursed, however, the petitioner was not held entitled to any back wages on the principle of “no work no pay”. The period of absence, however, was directed to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. This communication was assailed by the petitioner in SWP No.1397/2013. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition interalia prayed for the following directions: (i) To quash the impugned communication dated 22.03.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 ; (ii) To pay the petitioner the entire salary of her husband till superannuation; (iii) To consider the one of family members of deceased husband for a job; and (iv) To pay the petitioner pension to which she is entitled post superannuation of her husband. 4. The writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 18.03.2015. The claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages for the period during which the deceased official had remained unauthorisedly absent and had not rendered any service to the public was declined. 4. The writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 18.03.2015. The claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages for the period during which the deceased official had remained unauthorisedly absent and had not rendered any service to the public was declined. However, the petitioner was held entitled to all monetary benefits including family pension at the rate provided under the applicable service rules taking it as a case of deceased having died in harness and not retired on superannuation. Likewise, the petitioner was also held entitled to the compassionate appointment in accordance with Rules. 5. When this judgment of the Court dated 18.03.2015 was not complied with by the respondents, instant contempt petition was filed by the petitioner. 6. Respondents were put to notice in this petition and in response thereto they have filed the compliance report. In the compliance report filed on 14.12.2015, the respondents have stated that the payment to which the petitioner is entitled to, has already been granted, be it enhanced family pension or normal family pension, or DCRG, leave encashment, GPF, CIS etc. It is thus submitted that the judgment passed by the Court has been fully complied with except that the matter with regard to compassionate appointment in the CRPF is still under consideration. It was further stated in the compliance report that Ms. Reshmi Singh daughter of the deceased had submitted her application on 06.08.2012 for compassionate appointment as Sub Inspector in the CRPF but she was informed by the Group Centre Hyderabad’ office that there was no vacancy of Sub Inspector/GD under compassionate appointment quota and therefore, she was well advised to submit her application/willingness and undertaking certificate for the post of HC (Ministerial) or Constable (GD/Tradeswomen). It is stated that till date the respondents have not received any response as such her application for compassionate appointment could not be processed further. It is thus the stand taken by the respondents that once Ms. Reshmi submits the requisite written application/willingness and undertaking certificate, her case for compassionate appointment for the post of HC (Ministerial) or Constable/GD Tradeswomen would be considered. 7. The petitioner, however, is not satisfied with the compliance report and submits that as per rules, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced amount of ex-gratia and gratuity. Reshmi submits the requisite written application/willingness and undertaking certificate, her case for compassionate appointment for the post of HC (Ministerial) or Constable/GD Tradeswomen would be considered. 7. The petitioner, however, is not satisfied with the compliance report and submits that as per rules, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced amount of ex-gratia and gratuity. It is claimed that this aspect was taken note of by this Court vide its interim order dated 19.09.2017. The petitioner has also placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit his rebuttal to the statement of facts filed by the respondents along with certain calculations to claim that as per rules, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced amount of gratuity and ex-gratia. 8. I have considered the submissions made and perused the record carefully. The petition is for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience and deliberate defiance of order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in SWP No.1397/2013. The directions contained in the order dated 18.03.2015, have their genesis in the earlier round of litigation initiated by the respondents by way of SWP No. S-650/2005 and the judgment of Division Bench dated 22.11.2011 passed in LPA(SW) No. 199/2011. The claim of the petitioner for back wages for the period deceased had remained unauthorisedly absent and out of action because of order of dismissal was declined by the writ Court. The petitioner, however, was held entitled to all the monetary benefits including pension/family pension at the rates provided under the applicable service rules taking it as a case of deceased having died in harness and not retired on superannuation. Additionally, there was a command issued to the respondents to consider grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the dependants of the deceased employee in accordance with rules. So far the first part of order is concerned, the same has been complied with by the respondents, who have released all the monetary benefits including pension/family pension. This is so stated by respondents very categorically in the compliance report/statement of facts filed on behalf of the respondents. The issue as to whether the pension and other monetary benefits granted to the petitioner are in accordance with rules or not cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in the contempt proceedings. It is the stand of the respondents that whatever monetary benefits are payable to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules, have been paid. The issue as to whether the pension and other monetary benefits granted to the petitioner are in accordance with rules or not cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in the contempt proceedings. It is the stand of the respondents that whatever monetary benefits are payable to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules, have been paid. This Court has to accept that the statement and in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may have fresh cause to agitate. What rules were applicable to the case of the petitioner and what amount should have been paid are all disputed question of facts which cannot be agitated or adjudicated upon in the contempt proceedings. Regarding compassionate appointment, the respondents in their statement of facts very categorically stated that the case of compassionate appointment of the daughter of the petitioner is under consideration. She had applied for the post of Sub Inspector, which the respondents claim, is not available in the compassionate quota and therefore, she has been advised to give her willingness for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner has not responded to the aforesaid communication of the respondents, and therefore, her case for compassionate appointment has not been considered further. Once the willingness as asked for by the respondents is submitted by the daughter of the petitioner, the respondents shall issue appropriate order of appointment on compassionate basis in her favour. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any deliberate or wilful defiance of the directions passed by this Court which would necessitate invoking of the contempt jurisdiction against the respondents. This contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it, however, open to the petitioner to agitate her grievance by taking appropriate legal recourse.