2014 (1) TMI 1897 - SC - Indian Laws

Benefit of re-designated pay/post and the pay-scale of a higher post - whether an order would also mean that the applicant could claim post revision and benefits of the higher post without being considered for the said post? - HELD THAT - Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law Courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the Courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. No case is made out to initiate the contempt proceedings against the Respondents - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Contempt of court for alleged disobedience of court orders regarding service benefits and post designation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of Court Orders
The Contempt Petition was filed by the applicant against the Respondents for allegedly wilfully violating the court's judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 by failing to pay all consequential service benefits as directed. The applicant sought enforcement of the court order for reinstatement and back wages, along with post designation and retirement benefits.

Issue 2: Background and Legal Proceedings
The applicant, a former Under Secretary (Legal), was compulsorily retired by Nigam. After legal challenges, the High Court quashed the retirement order but did not award back wages. Subsequent appeals affirmed the reinstatement order with back wages. The applicant claimed entitlement to a re-designated post and salary equivalent to a higher post, alleging denial of benefits granted to another appointee.

Issue 3: Contention and Defense
The applicant's counsel argued that the court orders implied granting all permissible benefits, including post revision and higher post benefits. The Respondents' counsel contended that no court direction existed for post revision, and the applicant had not challenged the other appointee's designation. The Respondents denied wilful disobedience of court orders.

Issue 4: Contempt Jurisdiction and Wilful Disobedience
The court discussed contempt jurisdiction's purpose to uphold judicial respect and authority. It emphasized the need for establishing wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt, requiring a deliberate, calculated, and intentional act with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse. The court cited precedents to differentiate wilful acts from inadvertent or negligent actions.

Issue 5: Legal Precedents and Contempt Criteria
Legal precedents were cited to illustrate that if two interpretations of court orders were possible, and if actions were non-contumacious, contempt proceedings would not be maintainable. The court stressed the importance of willingness and intent in establishing contempt charges under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Issue 6: Court's Decision
After considering the contentions, the court found no basis to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents. It concluded that the petition was misconceived and lacked merit, dismissing it without costs. The court highlighted the absence of grounds to compel payment for two individuals in one post, especially as the other appointee's status was not challenged.

In conclusion, the court rejected the Contempt Petition, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of wilful disobedience to invoke contempt jurisdiction. The judgment underscored the importance of intent and deliberate actions in establishing contempt charges, ultimately ruling in favor of the Respondents due to the lack of compelling grounds for contempt proceedings.