Allahabad High Court
Chhidda Singh Sharma vs Smt. Archana Gupta,District ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2679 of 2023
Applicant :- Chhidda Singh Sharma
Opposite Party :- Smt. Archana Gupta,District Basic Education Officer
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Akhilendra Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The writ Court while disposing off Writ-A No. 38744 of 2013 on 07.10.2021 had directed the opposite party to examine the claim of the applicant for grant of pensionary benefits as per his entitlement in law.
As the applicant had already attained the age of superannuation and the question of absorption was not considered by the writ Court, pursuant to the order of writ Court the authorities on 15.03.2023 had decided his claim and rejected the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had worked for 38 years and the authorities should not have gone into the question of absorption and should have decided the matter regarding pensionary benefits as directed by the writ Court.
This Court after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the material on record, finds that the mandamus issued by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 38744 of 2013 was specific to the extent to the authorities to examine the claim for grant of pensionary benefits which the authorities have done by order dated 15.03.2023.
This Court cannot act as a Court of adjudication and adjudicate the matter on merits. The disputed question of facts cannot be delved into by this Court by exercising power under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. It is the writ Court who shall examine the disputed question of facts.
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 held as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" 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 wilfulness 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 vigour 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."
In view of the above, it is clear that this Court cannot examine the disputed question of facts and order of writ Court having been complied by the opposite party, no case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Shekhar
