Chanchal Singh vs Sri Rajeshwar Singh , Director ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26088 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185431
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6999 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Chanchal Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Rajeshwar Singh , Director (Agriculture)And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Ram Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

2. The writ Court on 24.01.2023 while disposing off the Writ-A No. 20203 of 2022 passed the following order;

"Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs which read as under:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certioari quashing/set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the District Programme Officer, Azamgarh (respondent no. 5) (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), thereby the petitioner, Bal Vikas Pariyajana Adhikari was transferred from Block Mehnagar to Block Azamgarh City with additional charge of Bal Vikas Pariyajana Ahiraula, Azamagarh by way of subsequently amending the earlier order dated 01.09.2022 in which the petitioner was transferred from Block Sathiyav/Martinganj (Additional charge) to Block Mehnagar/Ahiraula (additional charge).

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the entire salary of the petitioner which is due to pay till date and permitted to assume his duty on the post of Bal Vikas Pariyajana Adhikari at Sathiyav, Azamgarh.

The record further indicates that by means of order dated 12.12.2022, the Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether any order of recovery for a sum of Rs. 3, 54, 041/- has been passed against the petitioner. Time was further granted on 20.12.2022 to seek instructions and it is only thereafter the instructions have been received, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal, which is taken on record.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2022. He had made a request for release of his post retiral dues, however, from the perusal of the letter dated 13.10.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 6, it has been alleged by the respondent-authorities that there appears to be some recovery against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,54,041/- in respect of certain quantity of seeds relating to the year 2017-18.

It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as the alleged allegation is concerned, the same is belied by the fact that the petitioner had already deposited the aforesaid seeds and he has brought the receipt on record as Annexure no. 5.

It is also urged that till date there is no order of recovery and apart from the fact that the alleged recovery appears to be of the year 2017-18 and no action has been taken thereon till the time the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. It is only when it was the time to pay the post retiral dues, now a ground has been taken and without any formal order or moving any recovery against the petitioner in the aforesaid context, the dues have been withheld and as indicated from the letter brought on record as Annexure no. 6, the respondents-authorities are calling upon the petitioner to comply with the formalities for the release of the amount after deducting the aforesaid sum.

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned Standing Counsel was required to seek instructions as to whether any formal order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner and that the learned Standing Counsel has made an attempt to indicate from the written instructions that the petitioner was put to notice regarding his explanation for non-submission of the seeds for the year 2017-18 and it is urged that despite repeated notices, a final notice was also issued to the petitioner on 04.02.2019 and yet the petitioner did not respond, hence, the recovery is sought to be made from the retiral dues.

Be that as it may, the fact still remains that despite repeated notices that having been sent to the petitioner and even though he did not respond to the same yet since February, 2019 till the time the petitioner retired, no orders were passed regarding the alleged recovery nor any departmental proceedings were initiated.

There is nothing on record at this stage which could be pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel to indicate that any action has been taken against the petitioner regarding the non-submission of the seeds and that any order of recovery has been passed on any departmental proceedings were initiated.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where no order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner till the time the petitioner has attained retirement and the matter appears to be of the year 2017-18, accordingly, there does not appear to be any justification for withholding the post retiral dues of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, since there is no order of recovery against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to get the post retiral dues, hence, this Court permits the petitioner to move a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today indicating his claim of post retiral benefits and in case if such representation is moved, the respondent Authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously preferrably within a period of four weeks and shall do the needful in releasing the the post retiral dues of the petitioner within the aforesaid period unless there is any cogent legal impediment. Time to be reckoned from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."

3. From perusal of the order of writ Court it is clear that only direction issued by the writ Court was to the extent to decide the representation of the applicant in case it was filed within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order of writ Court.

4. According to learned counsel for the applicant the representation of the applicant has been decided by the opposite party. He further submits that though the representation has been decided and retiral dues have been paid but no interest has been paid on the said retiral dues.

5. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, finds that only direction issued by the writ Court was to decide the representation which the authorities had already done. Further, Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act lays down when a contempt proceeding is maintainable.

6. The Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has 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."

7. The contempt Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot delve into the disputed question of fact and the argument raised at Bar by the applicant's counsel cannot be appreciated and dealt with under contempt jurisdiction while exercising power under Section 12 of the Act. It is the writ Court who will decide the matter on merits as held by Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora (supra).

8. From perusal of the order of writ Court and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant it is clear that no case for contempt is made out as representation of the applicant had already been decided by the opposite party.

9. As the order of writ Court has been complied with by the authorities, contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.

10. This Court finds that that applicant has given a wrong legal advise for filing of present contempt application which was not maintainable as the order of writ Court had already been complied by the opposite party.

Order Date :- 25.9.2023

Shekhar