Contempt of Court – Jurisdiction – Respondent filed writ petition – Disposed of – Judgment affirmed by Supreme Court inter alia holding that the daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale as received by their counter-parts in the Government – Respondent again filed writ petition – Directions passed vide order dtd. 23.10.08 – In terms of such order, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division Agra, passed order that the respondent was not eligible for regularisation/equal pay – Contempt Application (C) No.1632 of 2009 filed by the respondent – Various orders passed seeking personal presence of the officers of the State – Appellants eventually filed Special Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court by filing Review Petition – Appellants filed Review Petition – Dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.12.2017 – Application for recall of said order – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Once an order was passed by the Department, it was open to the respondent to challenge the said order by way of writ petition, but the contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked – Order of the Court on 23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of minimum regular pay scale – Since the appellants considered the claim of regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale, the only remedy of the respondent was by way of the writ petition – High Court exceeded the contempt jurisdiction to compel the officers of the State to appear in court – Grievance regarding regularization of the service on account of break in service could not have been taken up in contempt proceedings – High Court not justified in passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers – Orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved otherwise – Contempt Application dismissed – Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Once an order had been passed by the Department, it was open to the respondent to challenge the said order by way of a Writ Petition, but the Contempt Jurisdiction could not be invoked. The Contempt Court is to ensure that the order of the Court is complied with. The order of the Court on 23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of minimum regular pay scale. Since the appellants considered the claim of regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale, the only remedy of the respondent was by way of the Writ Petition. The High Court exceeded the Contempt Jurisdiction to compel the officers of the State to appear in court and in fact, the High Court travelled much beyond the orders passed by the Single Bench on 23.10.2008. [Paras 15, 16][627-B-D]
1.2 Grievance regarding regularization of the service on account of a break in service could not have been taken up in Contempt proceedings, when such issue had attained finality in the High Court. The High Court was not justified in passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers. The officers of the State discharge public functions and duties. The orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved otherwise. The officers pass orders as a custodian of public money. Therefore, merely because an order has been passed, it does not warrant their personal presence. The summoning of officers to the court to attend proceedings, impinges upon the functioning of the officers and eventually it is the public at large who suffer on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them. The practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve the purpose of administration of justice in view of the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary. If an order is not legal, the Courts have ample jurisdiction to set aside such order and to issue such directions as may be warranted in the facts of the case. Entire proceedings in Contempt Application No.1632 of 2009 were wholly unjustified and in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Contempt Court. The Contempt Application is dismissed. [Paras 21-23][630-A-E] State of U.P. and Others v. Putti Lal (1998) 1 UPLBEC
313 ; State of U.P and Others. v. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337 ; Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division and Another v. Lakshmi Chandra (2016) 4 SCC 721 ; State of U.P. and Others v. Chhiddi and Others 2016
(1) ALJ 226 ; Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others v. Shri Hari Shankar (2011) ILLJ 581 All ; Surendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others Judgment dated 24.9.2015 of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 1016 of 2005 ; Visheshwar v. Principal Secretary Forest Anubhag-3 and Others Civil Misc. Judgment dated 29.11.2004 of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 47568 of 2002 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.