Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Veerwati, Adhyaksh / Chairman, ... on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3972 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- Veerwati, Adhyaksh / Chairman, Nagar Panchayat And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manu Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Ajay Sengar,C.S.C.,Chandra Prakash Singh,Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Satish Kumar, Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar is present in the Court today, who is identified by Sri Mahendra Singh, counsel appearing for opposite party.
2. Sri Amit Saxena, Senior Advocate, appearing for opposite party states that the entire order of the writ Court has been complied with and the applicant has been reinstated and all the backwages with all the consequential benefit as granted by the writ Court has been given to the applicant.
3. Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the increment, which should have been given in the year 2013 was not given to the applicant and the amount so calculated does not include the increment of the year 2013 due to which about Rs. 6-7 lacks still remains to be paid to the applicant.
4. This Court finds that the order of the writ Court dated 10.12.2020.. passed in Writ ? A No. 36193 of 2015 having been complied and all the consequential benefits accruing to the applicant having been given, nothing remains to the adjudicated in this contempt application. Whether the increment of the year 2013 was to be given to the applicant or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as the matter relating to said increment was not pressed before the writ Court.
5. 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 :
"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."
6. In view of the said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with, the contempt application is dismissed.
7. Contempt notice stands discharged.
8. However, it is open to the applicant to raise the issue with regard to increment of the year 2013 before the appropriate Forum, if so advised.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
Kushal
