Gujarat High Court
Dharmendrakumar Virabhai Patel vs Manisha Chandra, Secretary on 16 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1059 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/779/2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/21258/2023
==========================================================
DHARMENDRAKUMAR VIRABHAI PATEL
Versus
MANISHA CHANDRA, SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MS BHUMI A. GANDHI AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application is filed seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed in the captioned writ petition.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, the respondents have reinstated the applicant in service. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav A Vyas for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is entitled for enhanced pay as well as consequential benefits, however, the applicant is only being reinstated on the pay of Rs.12,500/-. He has also referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1327 of 2019 and the allied matters.
3. At this stage, the interim directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 779 of 2024, more Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:25:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1059/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined particularly paragraph 5 reads thus:
"5. Thus, the present Appeal is allowed. The order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge as also the termination order dated 03.05.2021 are quashed and set aside. The respondent/s shall reinstate the appellant on his original post within a period of three weeks. However, it will be open for the respondent/s in case if they so desire to follow the procedure as prescribed under the law before taking any action against the appellant."
4. At this stage, it would be apposite to the refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2004) 7 S.C.C. 261 as well as V.Senthur Vs. M.Vijaykumar, 2021 Scale 11 566. The applicants are alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.01.2022, more particularly paragraph No.12.
"In view of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as provided under Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988. The Court also adds that the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 would require ascertaining some facts, which will have to be gathered from the Departments and therefore, the Court leaves it upon the concerned Department to gather the factual aspects with regard to the service period and condition of the petitioners and grant the benefit as per the entitlement under the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988. Aforesaid exercise to be completed within period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court."
5. The Apex Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram (supra) has held that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. The Court cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:25:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1059/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
6. Similarly, in case of V.Senthur (supra) the Apex Court has held that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that in the contempt jurisdiction, accordingly the Court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction neither would it be permissible for the Court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and order and the Court is only concerned with the willful or deliberate non- compliance of the directions issued in the original order.
7. Thus, the only direction the Division Bench had passed is to reinstate the applicant to its original post within three weeks and no further directions are issued as to wages / salary which is required to be paid to him. There are no other directions issued by the Division Bench regarding consequential benefits. Moreover, the applicant was reinstated by the respondents to its original post. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent authorities, as directed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The present contempt proceedings are closed. In case, the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the concerned authority in fixation and payment of the benefits, and they are disputing the same, it will be open for them to challenge such action before appropriate forum. Notice is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Radhika/28 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:25:07 IST 2025