Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vempali Rambabu vs S.Satyanarayana,Ias on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO.3478 OF 2023
1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful
disobedience in implementing the Order dated 05.05.2023 passed by
this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.11589 of 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the petitioner filed W.P No.11589 of 2023 questioning the action of
Commissioner, Endowments Department in proposing to retire the
petitioner on 30.06.2023 by issuing notice dated 22.04.2023 as
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022.
3. This Court passed interim order on 05.05.2023 in
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.11589 of 2023 and it reads as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Endowments and learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in similar
circumstances, this Court granted an interim order dated
08.12.2022 in W.P.No.39761 of 2022 and requested to pass a
similar order in this writ petition also.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid order, this Court is inclined to
pass a similar order in this writ petition also.
NV,J
Therefore, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents
to continue the service of the petitioner till he attains the age of
superannuation of 62 years."
4. Learned counsel submits that, after obtaining interim order
from this Court, the petitioner submitted representation along with
order copy to the Executive Officer. Respondent No.1 issued a Memo
dated 28.06.2023 informing Respondent No.2 that decision can be
taken with regard to continuation of said employee only after
receiving orders of the Hon'ble High Court on vacate stay petition to
be filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, based on the
Memo dated 28.06.2023 issued by Respondent No.1/Commissioner,
Respondent No.1/Executive Officer issued proceedings in
Rc.No.A1/2329/2013 dated 30.06.2023 directing the petitioner to
retire from service on 30.06.2023, contrary to the directions of the
Hon'ble Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court in I.A.No.1 of
2023 in W.P.No.11589 of 2023 dated 05.05.2023, as such, it would
amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, and,
therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of
NV,J
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the
petitioner filed the present Contempt Case.
7. No counter affidavits are filed by the respondents, inspite of
granting time for filing counter affidavit(s) on 08.08.2023 and
12.10.2023. Hence, this Court is left with no other option, except to
proceed with the matter in the absence of counter affidavit(s).
8. During hearing, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel
for the respondent/contemnor would submit that the petitioner is
governed by the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08-12-
2000. Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000 mandates that the age of
superannuation of every office holder or servant shall be 58 years
except in cases of Watchmen and Attenders whose age of
superannuation shall be 60 years. According to the respondents,
after F.R. 56 was omitted and replaced by the Age of Superannuation
Act, 1984, the employees of the 8 special institutions are governed by
the Age of Superannuation Act, 1984 but as G.O.Ms.No.888 was
issued by the Government, the petitioner is governed by
G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08-12-2000, and he cannot claim the age of
superannuation at 62 years on par with the Government
employments as enhanced by the Superannuation Act, 2022. His
specific contention is that, unless the Government extends the age of
superannuation enhancing the age of the petitioners on par with the
NV,J
Government employees by issuing a G.O., or clarification, the
petitioner shall retire at the age of 60 years only.
9. Learned counsel would submit that, since the
respondent/contemnor also filed vacate stay petition pending
contempt case, without hearing and deciding the vacate stay petition,
the contempt case cannot be proceeded with.
10. Learned counsel further submits that, unless and until steps
are taken by the individual employers/Head of the Department(s),
the employees are not entitled to enhancement of superannuation
age. He also points out that requisite permissions and decisions are
to be taken by each of the head of the department, an employee is
not entitled to enhancement of superannuation age automatically.
11. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and perused the
material available on record.
12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I find it apposite to
narrate the legal position for better appreciation of the case and
application of law.
13. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
"civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
NV,J
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court.
14. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors1
the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for holding a
person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was
wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was
indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to
contempt.
15. In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive
Engineer, R & B2, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only
disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference
with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of
Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the
Court also is a Contempt of Court."
16. The prefatory remarks of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra
Shashi vs. Anil Kumar3, as extracted hereunder would well project
the importance of the issue under consideration in this suo motu
contempt case:
1 AIR 1999 SC 3215
2 1996 (2) ALD Cri 844
3 AIR 1995 SC 1795
NV,J
"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain
unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality
to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the
sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of
judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive,
the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such
persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish
them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging
in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of
administration of justice.
At Para Nos. 7 & 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted
hereunder:
"7. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts
not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate
action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates
court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and
pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries
ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case,
1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to
receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted
water before entering their temples"
The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below
by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers 1974 A.C.
273 at page 302:
NV,J
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific
settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order.
In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the
authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse
to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When
such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because
those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice
are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very
structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the
land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is
supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in
their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury,
pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately
dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court
to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of
those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately
prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find
that
(truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or
(it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem
but really happens in the portals of courts.
17. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India4, the Division
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder:
"Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of
the court with due dignity for the institution. The
Government departments are no exception to it."
(2012) 1 SCC 273
NV,J
18. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot 5 , the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted
hereunder:
"It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court
orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a
passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result.
Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the
rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is
the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian
of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and
functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they
are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts
have to be respected and protected at all costs."
19. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors6, the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of
Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing
confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed
by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of
more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order
would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a
situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject
(2006) 5 SCC 1
2002 CriLJ 1814
NV,J
of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's
order would not be a permissible defence.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and
others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others 7 held that,
punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and
normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however,
it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and
maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for
such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure
due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take
strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent
weapon of contempt.
21. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao 8 , the Hon'ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts
because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is
invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but
for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court.
10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred
for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes
at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on
which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not
AIR 2008 SC 3016
8 MANU/AP/0136/2012
NV,J
in the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the
confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts.
23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be
implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused
under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not
eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is
some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should
approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it
would amount to disobedience to the Court."
22. Admittedly, this Court granted interim direction in I.A.No.1 of
2023 in W.P.No.11589 of 2023 dated 05.05.2023, directing the
respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till he attains
the age of superannuation of 62 years. Complaining willful
disobedience on the part of the respondents in not implementing the
orders of the Court, the petitioner filed this contempt case.
23. This Court granted interim order on 05.05.2023 directing the
respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till he attains
the age of superannuation of 62 years. Respondent
No.1/Commissioner after taking note of the same, addressed a
Memo dated 28.06.2023 to the Executive Officer informing her that a
decision can be taken with regard to continuation of the petitioner
only after receiving orders of the Hon'ble High Court on vacate stay
petition to be filed. Admittedly, the interim order was passed by this
Court on 05.05.2023 and the vacate stay petition along with counter
NV,J
affidavit was filed on 01.07.2023 i.e. almost after two months from
the date of passing the interim order. But, the Commissioner/
Respondent No.1 willfully flouted the orders passed by this Court,
knowing fully well the consequences to be emanated for such
violation. Respondent No.1 might have been under an impression
that he need not obey the law and not required to implement the
orders of this Court.
24. That apart, few of the employees working in Sri Venkateswara
Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru District filed
W.P.Nos.8329 of 2023 & batch claiming the same relief to continue
them until the age of superannuation of 62 years. Vide Memo dated
12.06.2023, the very same Commissioner/Respondent No.1
instructed the Executive Officer to file counter along with vacate stay
petitions immediately, permitting the Executive Officer to continue
the said individuals in service, subject to further orders in the above
writ petitions.
25. This Court noticed that there is difference between the stand of
the Commissioner/Respondent No.1 in issuing Memo dated
12.06.2023 with respect to persons/employees therein and while
issuing Memo dated 28.06.2023 with respect to this petitioner,
though both stand on similar footing and seeking relief of
NV,J
continuation of their services till the age of superannuation of 62
years.
26. It cannot be disputed that, the employees working in the Eight
Major Temples are under the very same employer which is under the
State Government. All the employees under the State Government
are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to
similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment and there
cannot be discrimination inter se. Undoubtedly, there cannot be
discrimination among the similarly situated persons/employees. To
deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
27. As and when this Court in categorical terms directed the
respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till he attains
the age of superannuation of 62 years, issuing Memo dated
28.06.2023 by Respondent No.1 that, a decision can be taken only
after receiving orders of the Court on vacate stay petition to be filed
is nothing but willful violation of the order of this Court.
28. For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the Commissioner, Endowments Department/Respondent
No.1 willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 05.05.2023
passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.11589 of 2023 and thereby, he is
NV,J
found guilty of contempt. As such, he is liable for punishment under
the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
29. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing Respondent
No.1 - Commissioner, Endowments Department to undergo simple
imprisonment for a term of one (01) month and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
30. This Court observed that the petitioner was forced to retire in
view of the proceedings of Respondent No.2/Executive Officer dated
30.06.2023. It appears that, since the Executive Officer is only the
implementing authority, who has implemented the order of Respondent
No.1, no action is proposed to be taken against Respondent No.2.
Accordingly, this contempt case is closed against Respondent No.2 with
a warning to be more careful and cautious in dealing with the Court
cases.
31. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date: 12.01.2024
SP
NV,J
32. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above order, so
as to enable him to prefer an appeal.
33. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent No.1/
Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period of four (04)
weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is
granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal if any preferred,
Respondent No.1/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar
(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 02.02.2024 before
05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.
____________________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date:12.01.2024
SP
