* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 317/2009
Decided on : 11th December, 2014
N.N.S. RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ragvesh Singh, Adv.
versus
K.B.L. MITTAL & ORS. .... Respondent
Through: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna
and Mr.J.K.Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the punishment which was imposed on the petitioner was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents on 31.03.2009 to show cause as to why contempt action for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the court may not be taken against the respondents. It was also directed by the learned Judge while issuing the notice on 31.03.2009 that pendency of the present petition will not be an impediment on the respondents in complying with the order. The order of the Division Bench by virtue of which the punishment imposed in departmental proceedings was set aside and he was reinstated with consequential benefits, was upheld right up to the Supreme Court.
4. However, during the pendency of the special leave petition in Supreme Court, an order came to be passed on 26.08.2009 that the Department has no objection to the release of the amount due to the petitioner in the instant case subject to his furnishing adequate security. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the apex court on 26.08.2009, it has not been disputed by the petitioner, who has appeared in person, that an amount of Rs.28,82,146/- has been paid to him subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this court as recorded in the order dated 23.09.2009.
5. The petitioner has challenged the computation of the aforesaid amount and has stated that some more money is payable to him in principal as well as on account of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to interest on gratuity amount as well as interest on account of the delayed payment.
6. I am not impressed with this submission of the petitioner that he is entitled to interest on gratuity or interest on the delayed payment having regard to the fact that this is a contempt petition. Even the quantum of amount payable to the petitioner cannot be permitted to be adjudicated in a contempt petition. The contempt action is to be initiated against a party only if there is disobedience and this disobedience must be contumacious, wilful and deliberate.
7. In the order granting consequential reliefs to the petitioner, there is no mention of payment of interest either on gratuity or on the amount of arrears payable to the petitioner by way of consequential benefits. Therefore, this court cannot enlarge the scope of the impugned order so as to give the benefit of interest on any score to the petitioner.
8. Similarly, based on the same analogy, even if the petitioner is disputing the quantum of payment made to him, that cannot be subjected to a minute analysis in a contempt petition. The petitioner is free to seek redressal on all these scores in accordance with law if his grievances still subsist.
9. The second submission of the petitioner is that he has been given a medical card/identity card which does not mention his designation from which he has superannuated and thus when the petitioner travels in Railways, he does not get the actual benefits available to him. This submission of the petitioner that his designation is not reflected in the medical card/identity card also seems to be absurd.
10. The question which arises for consideration is that the petitioner is entitled to certain medical benefits or otherwise, for which he is required to have a card from his erstwhile employer. It is not disputed by him that such a card has been issued to him. There is no statutory requirement, much less is there a direction, that the designation of the petitioner be mentioned in the said card. There is also no mention in this regard in the order of which contempt has been alleged. Therefore, this is also beyond the scope of the present contempt petition and cannot be considered.
11. The third submission which has been made by the petitioner is that he ought to have been promoted to Additional Secretary and a member of the Railway Board and the said promotional benefit has not been given to him.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that the petitioner's ACRs as were prevalent were considered by the review DPC and he was found unfit for promotion.
13. This part of the order by respondent No.2 having been declared unfit for promotion, has been assailed by the petitioner in an independent OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore this benefit of promotion to the post of Additional Secretary cannot be considered to be a consequential benefit to be granted to the petitioner in the present contempt petition.
14. If at all, the petitioner feels aggrieved, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action for which he has availed of appropriate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, this also does not warrant any further action to be taken by this court.
15. Lastly, the petitioner has contended that he is entitled to a pension of Rs.39,500/-for which a PPO was issued and later on the respondents have reduced the pension of the petitioner to Rs.33,500/- and this discrepancy in the calculation of the pension deserves to be rectified by directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.39,500/-.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the compliance report/affidavit filed by them on the second occasion wherein in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the first PPO has been issued on account of some miscalculation and accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was recalculated according to the statutory benefits available to the him which comes to Rs.33,500/-.
17. This is the amount to which the petitioner is entitled by way of pension and not the amount which was inadvertently reflected in the first PPO.
18. This fact, though has been contested by the petitioner, but, nevertheless, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a pension of Rs.39,500/ or Rs.33,500/- cannot be adjudicated in a contempt petition.
19. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has been paid a pension of Rs.33,500/- and in case he feels that he is still entitled to get a pension of Rs.39,500/-, then he may have his grievances adjudicated by a competent court or a forum, but certainly it cannot be adjudicated in the present contempt petition.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that none of the points raised by petitioner are justified. As a matter of fact, since the petitioner seems to have acquired a degree in law thus having legal assistance available at will, he has unnecessarily taken up colossal time of the court and prolonged the matter for the last more than five years. The file has become so bulky and thick that one had to fend for the papers. Such a practice of keeping a matter alive on one ground or the other only to get nitty grities decided in a contempt petition, cannot be permitted to be done.
21. In the instant case, the petitioner had tried to do so by seeking repeated adjournments and in normal circumstances, I would have dismissed the petition with heavy cost on account of the fact that the petitioner has wasted colossal time of the court, however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an old person, I refrain from doing so.
22. Accordingly, the present contempt petition being totally misconceived is dismissed. The contempt notice is discharged.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2014 dm