Chattisgarh High Court
K. S. Tomar vs Smt. Kiran Patkar (Namdeo) on 23 March, 2022
M.A.No.24/2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Misc. Appeal No.24 of 2022
K.S. Tomar, S/o Late Shri V.S. Tomar, aged about 59 years, the then
District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
(Contemnor No.1)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Patkar (Namdeo), D/o Late Shri Basant Kumar Namdeo,
aged about 44 years, W/o Shri Ashok Patkar, R/o Near Durga Mandir,
Durga Chowk, Katiyapara, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur
(C.G.)
(Petitioner)
2. Jitendra Shukla, Director, Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
(Contemnor No.1)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. R.S. Patel and Mr. Malay Jain, Advocates, on
advance copy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
(23-3-2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal preferred under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is directed against the order dated 21-
2-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C)
No.448/2020 framing charge in the contempt proceeding.
2. In M.A.No.45/2016 (Anil Kumar Dubey v. Pradeep Kumar Shukla),
decided on 25-1-2017, this Court by majority of 2 : 1, has held that "an
M.A.No.24/2022
appeal shall lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
against an order framing charge in contempt proceedings".
3. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant / contemnor, would submit that the writ court by its order
dated 22-10-2019 passed in W.P.(S)No.5734/2016 only directed the
competent authority to decide the application filed by respondent No.1
herein (writ petitioner) for compassionate appointment afresh within
the time stipulated therein and thereafter, respondent No.1's
application has been taken-up for consideration and it has been
rejected on the reasons mentioned in the order dated 11-11-2020
which cannot be taken exception to, as there was no direction to
decide the application in a particular way. He would further submit
that the District Education Officer has passed order on 11-11-2020,
and thus the order dated 22-10-2019 passed by the writ court has duly
been complied with and no case for contempt is made out that too for
framing charge, as such, the impugned order framing charge against
the appellant deserves to be set aside.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the contemnor / appellant herein
and considered his submissions made herein-above and also went
through the record with utmost circumspection.
5. Shri Basant Kumar Namdeo while working as Accountant in
Government Higher Secondary School, Sasaha, District Janjgir-
Champa died in harness on 6-7-2003 and thereafter, respondent No.1
herein being married daughter made an application for compassionate
appointment which was rejected by order dated 9-2-2016 holding that
as per policy dated 10th June, 2003, there is no provision for grant of
compassionate appointment to married daughter. The learned Single
M.A.No.24/2022
Judge of this Court by order dated 22-10-2019 set aside the order
rejecting the application of respondent No.1 for compassionate
appointment in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the
matter of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others 1 and
remitted the matter to the competent authority to decided afresh in
accordance with law by holding as under: -
"7. Applying the aforesaid principles since the father of
the petitioner died on 06.07.2003, the petitioner being the
married daughter filed an application for compassionate
appointment on 09.07.2004, which was eventually
dismissed on 09.08.2016 on the ground that the married
daughter cannot claim for compassionate appointment.
The ratio of principle/issue having been set at rest by the
authoritative pronouncement by this Court, the reasons as
stated in the Annexure P-1 cannot be allowed to sustain. In
a consequence, the order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-
1) whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected on
the ground that the married daughter cannot get
appointment on the compassionate ground is set aside. It
is directed that respondents No.2 & 4 shall take afresh
decision on the application for compassionate appointment
of the petitioner by reconsideration of the facts afresh
keeping in view the fact that the father has died on
06.07.2003 and subsequent to it immediately the
application for compassionate appointment was made on
09.07.2004, which eventually was declined by the State
Government on 09.02.2016 and subsequently this Court
has passed the judgment whereby the order dated
09.02.2016 is being set aside. The said application of the
petitioner shall be decided afresh within a further period of
4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
6. Thereafter, when the matter was taken-up by the competent authority
i.e. the District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in
compliance of the above-stated order, the District Education Officer
had rejected the application by recording following finding: -
श्रीमती ्रककिरणत ्रपाटकररण ्ररेाट ्रपाटरणत ्ररक ्रअवलोकनर ्रककिरयालक ्रगयायालक ्रजजिसममेजि ्र पाटकयालक ्रगयायालक ्रककिर
यालकचचिरकरतकर्ता ्र रेाट ्र ककिपाटतक ्र सो .श्री ्र बसंमत ्र रुसंमकण ्र कमवेाटो ्र शासकम.उ.मक.ककिो.ममहक ्र मेजि
M.A.No.24/2022
केाटखकपाटकक ्ररेाट ्रपाटव ्रपाटण ्रणहतेाट ्र हुसंए ्रककिव कर ्र07/07/2003 ्ररन ्रमतयालुसं ्र हुसंई ्र। ्र ्रसो. ्रश्री
बसंमत ्ररुसंमकण ्र कमवेाटो ्ररी ्रककिोिोक ्रपाटत ी ्ररेाट ्रअवलचतिणर ्रउ रेाट ्र02 ्रककिोोकककिहत ्रपाटुसंककि्यालक ्रहै ्र।
श्री ्र कमवेाटो ्ररी ्रककिोिोक ्रपाटतत ्ररी ्रउर ्रअवलचिर ्रहन ेाट ्र रेाट ्ररकणत ्रउ रेाट ्रदनककणक ्रअवल ुसंरपपाटक
ककि यालुसंककिर ्रसोयाल ्ररेाट ्रलकए ्र क ्रसोीरकण ्ररण ्रअवलपाट ी ्रछनरी ्रपाटुसं्ी ्रश्रीमती ्रककिरणत ्रपाटकररण ्ररन
अवल ुसंरपपाटक ्रककि यालुसंककिर ्रककिवयालेाट ्र सक ेाट ्र हेाटतुसं ्र आोवेाट ्रपाटसतुसंत ्रककिरयालक ्रथक ्र। ्र ्रततममयाल ्रमकमकन्याल
पाटशासकम ्ररेाट ्रपाटिणपाट् ्रककिव कर ्र10/06/2003 ्ररेाट ्रअवल ुसंमकण ्रमृतर ्रशासकमरीयाल ्रमेाटोर ्ररेाट
अवलककिोोकककिहत ्र पाटुसं्ी ्र रन ्र अवल ुसंरपपाटक ्र ककि यालुसंककिर ्र वेाटयालेाट ्र सक ेजि ्र रक ्र पाटकोिक ्र थक . ्र ्रततममयाल
ककिोोकककिहत ्र पाटुसं्ी ्र रन ्र अवल ुसंरपपाटक ्र ककि यालुसंककिर ्र पाटवक ्र रण ेाट ्र रक ्र रनई ्र ककि यालम ्र ही ्र थक ्र ।
फकसोरूपाट ्रश्रीमती ्रककिरणत ्रपाटकररण ्ररक ्रअवल ुसंरपपाटक ्रककि यालुसंककिर ्रमबसंिी ्रआोेाटव ्रमकन्याल ्र ही्
ककिरयालक ्रगयायालक ्र। ्र ्रइममेाट ्र वयालथथत ्रहनरण ्रउ रेाट ्रदनककणक ्रमक ीयाल ्रउच् ्रन्यालकयालककयाल ्ररेाट ्रममा
उपाटणनर ्रिणर ्रयालकचचिरक ्रवकयालण ्ररी ्रगयायाली ्र। ्र ्रपाटरणत ्ररेाट ्रअवलोकनर ्रमेाट ्रयालह ्रजकत ्रहनतक ्रहै
ककिर ्रछत्ीमगया़ ्रशासकम ्रमकमकन्याल ्रपाटशासकम ्रककिोभकगया ्ररेाट ्रपाटिणपाट् ्रककिव कर ्र22/03/2016
री ्ररचडरक ्र3(अवल) ्रमेजि ्रअवलककिोोकककिहत ्रशासबव ्ररन ्रककिोकनककिपाटत ्रककिरयालक ्रगयायालक ्रहै ्रअवलथकर्तात ्रककिोोकककिहत
पाटुसं्ी ्रभी ्रअवल र
ुसं पाटक ्रककि यालुसंककिर ्रहेाटतुसं ्रपाटक् ्रमक ी ्रगयायाली ्रहै, ्रकरतुसं ्रऐमेाट ्रपाटरणतो ्रमेजि ्रपाटुसं रर्ोचिकण ्रहेाटतुसं
आोेाटवर ्ररन ्रमबसंचित ्ररकयालकर्ताकयाल ्रमेजि ्र ककिव कर ्र30/06/2016 ्रतर ्रआोेाटव ्रपाटसतुसंत
रण ेजि ्र रक ्रकेाटख ्रककिरयालक ्रगयायालक ्रहै ्र । ्र ्रश्रीमती ्रककिरणत ्रपाटकररण ्ररेाट ्रदनककणक ्रककि िकर्तािणत ्रचतथथ ्ररेाट
पाटश्चकत ्रककिव कर ्र05/07/2016 ्ररन ्रइम ्ररकयालकर्ताकयाल ्रमेजि ्रआोेाटव ्रपाटसतुसंत ्रककिरयालक ्रगयायालक ्रहै
सन ्रककिर ्रमकमकन्याल ्रपाटशासकम ्रककिोभकगया ्ररेाट ्रदनककणक ्रवी ्रगयायाली ्रककि िकर्तािणत ्रममयाल ्रमीमक ्ररेाट ्रपाटश्चकत
रक ्रहै ्र। ्र ्रफकसोरूपाट ्रककिोचिकणनपाटणकत ्रएतद ्रदनककणक ्रश्रीमती ्रककिरणत ्रपाटकररण ्ररक ्रअवलभयालकोेाटव
मकन्याल ्रयालनगयाल ्र ही् ्रहै ्र।
7. A careful perusal of the order of the District Education Officer passed
in compliance of the order passed by the writ court would show that
the contemnor / District Education Officer took note of the fact that by
circular dated 22-3-2016, appropriate amendment has been made in
the circular and married daughter has been held eligible for
compassionate appointment, but time was granted up to 30-6-2016 to
file application, whereas respondent No.1 has preferred application on
5-7-2016 for compassionate appointment. It is appropriate to notice
that by order dated 9-2-2016, the application of respondent No.1 was
not rejected on the ground that she filed application belatedly on 5-7-
2016 and it ought to have been filed up to 30-6-2016, but was rejected
M.A.No.24/2022
on the ground that married daughter is not entitled for compassionate
appointment and when the order dated 9-2-2016 was set aside by the
writ court and directed for reconsideration, the ground of filing
application on 5-7-2016 i.e. after five days from the due date i.e. 30-6-
2016, has been taken by the District Education Officer.
8. This Court while remitting the matter definitely granted liberty to the
competent authority (District Education Officer) to decide the
application in accordance with law, which means to decide the
application strictly in accordance with law, that includes, the married
daughter is eligible for consideration as law declared by this Court and
it does not mean that consideration can be made on any ground which
is totally irrelevant and the application can be rejected on totally
irrelevant consideration. The ground of five days delay in making the
application is deemed to have been condoned, as at the earlier round,
the application of respondent No.1 was considered on merits and it
has been held that married daughter is not entitled for compassionate
appointment. When this Court had already held that married daughter
is eligible for consideration in Sarojni Bhoi (supra), then, now, it has
been rejected that the application was delayed by five days. The
order dated 11-11-2020 has been passed only to circumvent the order
passed by this Court and against the declaration made by this Court
that married daughter is entitled to be considered for compassionate
appointment, particularly when the declaration has been made by this
Court on 30-11-2015 that married daughter is eligible to be considered
for compassionate appointment and has been accepted by the State
Government and policy has also been amended, the application of
M.A.No.24/2022
respondent No.1 was rejected on 9-2-2016. The said declaration of
law is binding on the contemnor / District Education Officer.
9. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the law declared by the High
Court is binding to all the executive and judicial authorities within the
State. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within
the territory of India. As such, whenever a law is laid down by the
Supreme Court, it is binding on all the authorities whether executive or
judicial in the entire country. Article 141 of the Constitution of India
further provides that all the authorities, civil or judicial shall act in aid of
the Supreme Court. The supremacy of law laid down by the Supreme
Court with the binding effects admits no exception. The judgments of
the Supreme Court are decisional between litigants but declaratory for
the nation. (See Ganga Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others2.)
10. Though there is no specific provision in the Constitution corresponding
to Article 141 of the Constitution of India making the decision / law
declared by the High Court binding on all the subordinate courts and
the tribunals - the State, however, it is implicit in the power of
superintendence to High Courts vested in Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and by judicial pronouncement of their Lordships
of the Supreme Court. In the matter of East India Commercial Co.,
Ltd., Calcutta and another v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta 3, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have in uncertain terms held that the
law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities
or tribunals under its superintendence, and they cannot ignore it and
the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High
2 AIR 1980 SC 286
3 AIR 1962 SC 1893
M.A.No.24/2022
Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be
without jurisdiction. It was observed as under: -
"(29) As we have already noticed in the earlier stage of
the judgment, the notice issued by the respondent charges
the appellants thus:
"One of the conditions of the special licence was that
the goods would be utilized for consumption as raw
material or accessories in the factory of the licence-
holder and no part thereof would be sold to other
parties, but in contravention of that condition the
appellants sold a part of the goods imported to a third
party; and as the goods had been caused to be issued
by fraudulent misrepresentation, they were liable to be
confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs
Act."
Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act can be invoked only
if an order issued under Section 3 of the Act was infringed
during the course of the import or export. The Division
Bench of the High Court held that a contravention of a
condition imposed by a licence issued under the Act is not
an offence under Section 5 of the Act. This raises the
question whether an administrative tribunal can ignore the
law declared by the highest court in the State and initiate
proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared.
Under Article 215, every High Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Under
Article 226, it has a plenary power to issue orders or writs
for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for any
other purpose to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases any Government, within its territorial
jurisdiction. Under Article 227 it has jurisdiction over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction. It would be anomalous to
suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has
superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court
and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a tribunal
can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for
there is no specific provision, just like in the case of
Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court
binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of
supervision conferred on a superior tribunal that all the
tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the
law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be
M.A.No.24/2022
conducive to their smooth working: otherwise, there would
be confusion in the administration of law and respect for
law would irretrievably suffer. We, therefore, hold that the
law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on
authorities or tribunals under its superintendence, and that
they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or
deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. If that
be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the
launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by
the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings
themselves would be without jurisdiction."
11. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court
in East India Commercial Co., Ltd. (supra) was followed with approval
in the matter Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of
Endowments v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit 4. In that case, Shri Baradakanta
Mishra, the appellant therein, was a member of the Superior Judicial
Service of the State of Orissa being judicial officer and also worked
earlier as officiating District Judge. He was, at the relevant point of
time, functioning as Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments,
Orissa created under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act and
he did not follow the previous decision of the High Court. He was
found guilty of contempt by the High Court and when in the appeal
preferred by him against the order holding him guilty of contempt,
while dismissing the appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
have held that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High
Court is vested with the power of superintendence over the courts and
tribunals in the State. It was further held that acting as a quasi-judicial
authority under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the
appellant - judicial officer was subject to the superintendence of the
High Court and accordingly, the decisions of the High Court were
binding on him, he could not get away from them by adducing
4 (1973) 1 SCC 446
M.A.No.24/2022
factually wrong and illegitimate reasons. Their Lordships pertinently
observed as under:-
"15. The conduct of the appellant in not following the
previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create
confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine
respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the
constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is
therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the
law of Contempt. The analogy of the inferior court's
disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also
suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law
of Contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order
of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the
court in a particular case, similarly the deliberate and mala
fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the
previous decision undermines the constitutional authority
and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former
conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a
limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much
wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only
to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the
High Court, generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule
of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion
in the administration of law.
16. Our view that a deliberate and a mala fide conduct of
not following the binding precedent of the High Court is
contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of the
contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide act of
distinguishing the binding precedent, even though it may
turn out to be mistaken."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to hold that the
learned Single Judge is unjustified in framing charge against the
appellant herein. Accordingly, it is held that the order framing charge
is in accordance with law. We hereby dismiss the miscellaneous
appeal, in limine, finding no merit.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Soma
