Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Smt. Swati Singh, District ... on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1663 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar
Opposite Party :- Smt. Swati Singh, District Magistrate
Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Kumar Pal,Brajendra Kumar
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. The writ Court on 13th September, 2007 while disposing of the Writ-A No.5503 of 2021 passed the following order :
"Petitioner has superannuated from the post of Amin on 31st May, 2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that pension and other post retiral benefits including arrears of 6th and 7th Pay Commission Report as well as salary for 33 months remains payable but such amount has not been credited to the account of the petitioner.
Perusal of the record would go to show that a dispute exist with regard to petitioner's working for 33 months and the authorities appear to be seized with the matter. Annexure-4 to the writ petition is a communication sent by the District Magistrate Etah to his counterpart at Agra.
As the petitioner has already been superannuated, it would be appropriate to direct the District Magistrate Etah to examine the petitioner's grievance and ensure that his claim, as noticed above, is got examined expeditiously so as to ensure that all withheld amount payable towards retiral benefits and service benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order."
2. Today, when the case was taken up, Sri P.K.Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the decision taken by the District Magistrate, Agra on 28.09.2021 whereby the claim of the applicant, as directed by the writ Court, has been adjudicated upon.
3. Sri Giri states that apart from the fact that the applicant has not worked for 609 days, as such, no salary was paid to him for the said period on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.
4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that he is not aware of the order dated 28.9.2021 and not a single penny has been given to the applicant, as has been stated by the State counsel.
5. This Court finds that the order of writ Court dated 13.7.2021 was only to the extent that the District Magistrate was to examine the grievance of the applicant and ensure that all retiral benefits of the applicant, in case it was withheld, should be paid. The authorities, after examining the claim, has passed detailed order on 28.9.2021.
6. Recently the Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
7. In view of the said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with by the opposite party on 28.9.2021, a copy of which has been handed over to the applicant's counsel by the State counsel during the Court proceedings, the contempt application has rendered infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.
8. Contempt notice stand discharged.
9. File consigned to records.
10. However, in case the applicant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the opposite party on 28.9.2021, he may challenge the same before the appropriate legal forum, if so advised.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
Kushal
