Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Tomar And 4 Others vs Chandra Prakash Singh, District ... on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3698 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramesh Tomar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Singh, District Magistrate
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the Opposite Party for wilfully disobeying and flouting the judgment and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by this Court in Writ -A No.429 of 2022.
3. The writ Court on 04.04.2022 passed the following order :
"Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
Petitioner no.1 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 26.06.1984, his services were regularized on temporary basis on 26.09.2011, thereafter his services were permanently regularized on 25.09.2017, ultimately he retired on 31.08.2021. Petitioner no.2 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 04.06.1985, his services were regularized on temporary basis on 05.10.2010, thereafter his services were permanently regularized on 25.09.2017, ultimately he retired on 31.08.2021. Petitioner no.3 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 13.01.1987, his services were regularized on temporary basis on 27.07.2010, his services were permanently regularized on 17.04.2013, thereafter he retired on 31.10.2018. Petitioner no.4 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 01.12.1996, his services were regularized on temporary basis on 27.11.2015, his services were permanently regularized on 04.01.2018 and he retired on 31.06.2021 and petitioner no.5 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 18.01.1994, his services were regularized as Collection Amin on 05.08.2016 and thereafter he retired on 31.12.2017.
The grievance of the petitioners is that their ad hoc/temporary services were not being taken into consideration for the calculation of their qualifying services. In this regard they have represented before the concerned authorities. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021(10) ADJ 628.
Under such circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, it is being directed that if the petitioners individually represent afresh before the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar within a period of 15 days from today then their representations shall be considered and decided within a period of two months thereafter.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
4. Pursuant to the order of writ Court, opposite party proceeded to decide the representation of the applicant and rejected the same vide order dated 30.04.2022 recording a finding against the applicant. A copy of the order passed by opposite party has been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the contempt application.
5. Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the opposite party was not justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant solely on the ground that in Kaushal Kishore Chaubey, the matter is under active consideration before Division Bench of this Court in special appeal and thus no benefit can be accorded. He further contends that the opposite party should have taken note of the fact that the writ Court in Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2021 (10) ADJ 628 had specifically directed for counting of the service rendered in adhoc/temporary capacity for calculation of qualifying service.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.
7. The writ Court while passing the order dated 04.04.2022 very specifically observed that without going into the merits of the case, the applicant was directed to move a fresh representation, which was to be considered by the opposite party. Once the Court has not delved into the question raised by the applicant and had only permitted the applicant to raise his grievance before the authority concerned, which the applicant did by moving a representation and the same was decided within time fixed by the Court, on 30.04.2022, the present contempt application, at the behest of the applicant, is not maintainable.
8. 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 under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and proceed to decide an issue which has not been dealt with or decided by the Court of first instance, whose order is said to have been flouted. 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."
9. In view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others (supra), this Court finds that once the writ Court had left it open to the authority concerned to adjudicate the matter on merit on the representation being moved by the applicant and the same having been considered, this Court cannot go into the order passed by the authority concerned under the contempt jurisdiction and evaluate the same on merits.
10. Contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022
Kushal
