Allahabad High Court
Janardan Lal Mishra vs Shri V.K.Sharma Principal ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1979 of 2005
Applicant :- Janardan Lal Mishra
Opposite Party :- Shri V.K.Sharma Principal Secretary And Another.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohit Jauhari,Shailesh Chandra Tiwary
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manjit Shukla, learned ACSC and Sri Shailesh Chandra Tiwary, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Learned ACSC has filed affidavit of judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.213 of 2022; Uma Shankar Singh and another Vs. Janardan Lal Mishra and another, whereby this Court by recording categorical finding has recorded as under:
"When we peruse the order dated 27.01.2006 minutely, what we find is that though the said finding has been recorded in presence of the officer concerned present before the learned Contempt Judge, however, the order does not record any categorical statement or admission of the officer present before the Court and as such the said finding cannot be said to be based on any unqualified admission or statement of the Officer.
It is trite in law that in contempt jurisdiction the only issue which needs to be seen and adjudicated upon is as to whether the order passed by the Court has been complied with or there has been any defiance or disobedience. In our considered opinion and as is well settled, it is not open to the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act to exceed or depart from the mandate or direction given by the writ court. Thus, we are of the opinion that the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by learned Contempt Judge exceeds the jurisdiction and limitation of exercising the contempt jurisdiction.
So far as the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the matter was taken up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of similar circumstanced employees, namely, Hriday Ram Yadav and others is concerned, we may only observe that even Hriday Ram Yadav has been regularized w.e.f the year 2011 and not w.e.f. the year 2006 when the order dated 27.01.2006 was passed in the said case also.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that this special appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed and the orders dated 27.01.2006 and the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Contempt Petition No. 1979 of 2005 are hereby set-aside.
Before parting with the case, we may make it clear that so far as the payment of regular scale of pay is concerned, in terms of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the writ court the respondent no.1 is entitled to be paid regular scale of pay with effect from the date of his entitlement in terms of the said order.
However, we may make it clear that notwithstanding the decision rendered by us in this special appeal, it will always be open to the respondent no.1 to take appropriate recourse to any other remedy which may be available to him under law either by instituting writ petition or by taking any other appropriate legal recourse to get his regularization in service dated back.
There will be no order as to costs. "
3. On perusal of the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court, it is evident that this Court has came to the conclusion that no contempt proceeding is liable to be initiated against the opposite parties and suggestion has been made to approach appropriate forum.
4. In view of above, no cause of action survives and the present contempt application is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 4.7.2022
Adarsh K Singh
