Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 879 (AP)

T. Madhu v. Maddali Ravi Chandra

2020-12-31

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
ORDER : Battu Devanand, J. 1. The W.P. No. 9942 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner herein with the following prayer:- "to declare the impugned action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in not releasing the salaries to the petitioner in spite of fixation of pay to the petitioner as per Revised pay scales 2015 by the 2nd respondent on mere technical reasons and further action of 1 respondent in not taking any action for accepting PRC bills of Petitioner in spite of letter addressed by the 2nd respondent through Lr. No. 128/C1 I/2015 dated 08.12.2015 thereby depriving the Petitioner of his salaries and increments as per revised pay scales 2015 as highly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 46 Finance HRM VPC Department dated 30.04.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears salaries increments and other allowances due to Petitioner as per Revised pay scale Rules 2015 issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 46 Finance HRM VPC Department dated 30.04.2015." 2. In W.P.M.P. No. 12324 of 2017 in W.P. No. 9942 of 2017, this Court has granted interim direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay the salaries and increments to the petitioner as per the Revised Pay Scales, 2015 as fixed by the 2nd respondent without insisting for permanent I.D. number pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 3. Aggrieved by non-compliance of the said Order, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case in C.C. No. 119 of 2018 before this Court against one M. Vijaya Raju, Secretary, A.P. State Legislature. But it was closed by this Court on 21.12.2018 holding that there was no direction issued to the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature and therefore, the respondent herein cannot be held guilty of committing Contempt. While closing the Contempt Case, this Court observed that it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the Writ Petition. 4. Subsequently, the present Contempt Case is filed against respondents/contemnors 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in writ petition). On 30.08.2019 this Court admitted the Contempt Case and notice in Form-I was issued. On 27.09.2019 the 2nd respondent was present and his appearance was dispensed with. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 filed seeking to dispense with personal appearance of the 1st respondent on 27.09.2019 was allowed. 1 and 3 in writ petition). On 30.08.2019 this Court admitted the Contempt Case and notice in Form-I was issued. On 27.09.2019 the 2nd respondent was present and his appearance was dispensed with. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 filed seeking to dispense with personal appearance of the 1st respondent on 27.09.2019 was allowed. On 31.10.2019 the 1st respondent is present before the Court and he submitted that order, dated 06.04.2017 in W.P.M.P. No. 12324 of 2017 has been complied with. Considering the submissions, the presence of the 1st respondent is dispensed with. The Court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to file details with regard to the compliance of the order of this Court, dated 06.04.2017. On perusal of the proceedings sheet, it appears that thereafter from 08.11.2019 this Contempt Case was adjourned several times but no details were furnished before this Court with regard to the compliance. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2019 praying to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in view of the fact that there has been change in the incumbents in the office of the respondent 1 and 2. On 27.02.2020 this Court ordered I.A. No. 2 of 2019 and respondent 3 and 4 were impleaded. Thereafter, this matter adjourned for several times. 6. On 24.11.2020 this Court after hearing the counsel appearing on either side passed the following order: "The issue involved in this matter is quite simple and if there is a will on the part of the concerned particularly, the Government Departments, it can be resolved without any difficulty much to the relief of the petitioner. A bill is already presented to the Treasury by the A.P. Legislative and it appears that the bill has been returned for want of funds or raising a technical objection. In the matter of this nature, inviting contempt action from the Court by any of the respondents is completely uncalled for, which could have been resolved amicably otherwise. In the above circumstances, without going further deep into the matter, the office of A.P. Legislature is directed to present the bill relating to the petitioner to the concerned Treasury and it shall be attended to by the Treasury Officer without raising any type of objections henceforth. In the above circumstances, without going further deep into the matter, the office of A.P. Legislature is directed to present the bill relating to the petitioner to the concerned Treasury and it shall be attended to by the Treasury Officer without raising any type of objections henceforth. The Secretary, Finance Department of the Government shall see that the necessary funds are available for meeting this expenditure. To comply with these directions by 04.12.2020 otherwise contempt action shall issue." 7. Thereafter, this Contempt Case was listed on 07.12.2020. It came to the notice of this Court that though this case was posted for "compliance" the orders passed by this Court was not complied with and accordingly, Form I notice was issued requiring the presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition i.e., The Secretary, A.P. State Legislature did not present the bills of the petitioner till 07.12.2020. To know the factual position, this Court ordered appearance of the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition No. 9942 of 2017. 8. On 09.12.2020 the 4th respondent in the Contempt Case and 2nd respondent in writ petition present before this Curt. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 was filed seeking to dispense with the appearance of the 3rd respondent on that day in view of the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is ordered directing to appear on the next date of hearing. 9. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2020 to implead Sri P. Balakrishnama Charyulu, Secretary, A.P. State Legislature, Amaravati, Velagapudi, Guntur District, as 5th respondent in the Contempt Case. I.A. No. 2 of 2020 is ordered on 09.12.2020. 10. In the affidavit filed along with I.A. No. 1 of 2020, the 3rd respondent submitted that the 5th respondent did not submit any bills of the petitioner till 08.12.2020. The 5th respondent submitted that he submitted bills to the Pay & Accounts Department on 08.12.2020. He also submitted that on earlier occasions also they sent bills to the 4th respondent but they were returned with certain queries. The 4th respondent, who present before this Court, submitted that he joined as Main Pay & Accounts Officer on 04.10.2018 and till 08.12.2020, he has not received any bills from the 5th respondent. He also submitted that on earlier occasions also they sent bills to the 4th respondent but they were returned with certain queries. The 4th respondent, who present before this Court, submitted that he joined as Main Pay & Accounts Officer on 04.10.2018 and till 08.12.2020, he has not received any bills from the 5th respondent. Only on 08.12.2020 he received bills from the 5th respondent and he processed it immediately and made payments to the petitioner. 11. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after hearing the oral explanations of the respondents present before this Court, this Court came to a conclusion that something went wrong in implementing the orders of this Court for the last three years, for which the petitioner suffered a lot. To ascertain the factual position, this Court directed the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to file their separate affidavits stating the date-wise information with regard to presentation of bills and payments made and posted the Contempt Case to 17.12.2020. 12. On 17.12.2020 the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 present before the Court and filed their separate sworn affidavits. Upon perusal of the affidavits and having heard them personally, it is clear that no bills were presented by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent till 08.12.2020. Only after issuance of notice in form-I to the respondents, the 5th respondent submitted bills to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent immediately processed the said bills and made payments to the petitioner on the same day. 13. After considering the factual position, this Court came to an opinion that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not responsible for non-implementation of the interim orders of this Court and accordingly, dispensed with the appearance of them and directed the Registry to delete their names from the array of the cause title in the Contempt Cases. 14. This Court prima facie satisfied that the 5th respondent is responsible for non-implementation of the interim orders of this Court. Then, the Court asked the 5th respondent as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, he prayed the Court to pardon him. 14. This Court prima facie satisfied that the 5th respondent is responsible for non-implementation of the interim orders of this Court. Then, the Court asked the 5th respondent as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, he prayed the Court to pardon him. But, in the considered opinion of this Court, such type of willful, intentional and deliberate disrespect towards the orders of this Court, as shown by the 5th respondent, is not excusable and in the opinion of this Court, the 5th respondent is found guilty of the offence committed for violation of the orders of this Court, which is punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 15. In the present case, the petitioner is working in the A.P. State Legislature as Attender. It is the responsibility of the 5th respondent to see that the payments for which the petitioner is legally entitled for the work discharged by him without any delay to enable him for his survival and to feed his family. Because of the careless and lawlessness attitude of the 5th respondent, the petitioner and his family suffered a lot for non-implementation of the orders of this Court. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by the 5th respondent is not acceptable and in the opinion of this Court, it is not bonafide. 16. A Four Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab : 1972 (3) SCC 839 made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us: "Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 17. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 17. A Nine Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognized the superior status of the High Court as a Court of plenary jurisdiction being a Court of Record and held in Naresh Sridhar Mirajakar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others : AIR 1967 SC 1 as extracted hereunder: "High Court as a Court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A Court of record empowered all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of record is undoubtedly a superior Court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it, the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary." 18. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), this Court vested with the power to punish the Contemnor not only under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 but also this Court empowered to punish the Contemnor under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 19. After hearing the Contemnor with regard to quantum of sentence and keeping the nature of the offence into mind, in the opinion of this Court that in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court is passing the following order. 20. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnor/5th respondent is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo S.I. for seven (07) days. 20. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnor/5th respondent is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo S.I. for seven (07) days. After pronouncement of order of sentence, the contemnor again prayed to pardon him considering his age, as he aged 60 years and he already retired from service on 30.04.2020 and he is continuing as Secretary of A.P. State Legislature on extension of his service and he is a patient of Diabetic and Blood Pressure. He also assured to be more careful in future in implementing the Court orders. This Court after considering his age and health condition, the sentence imposed is modified on humanitarian grounds as under: "The contemnor is sentenced for imprisonment till rising of the Court today and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default, S.I. for seven (07) days."