Rajinder Kumar Sachar vs N.N. Vohra And Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 59 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

(1) According to the petitioner the respondents have committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act1971. The allegation is that the respondents have violated the undertaking given tothe High Court which is incorporated in the order dated 20/05/1993 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3601 /92.

(2) A reply on behalf of the respondents in the contempt petition has been filed.The petitioner has filed the rejoinder also.

(3) The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3601/92 challenging an order passed by the Government of India on 1/11/1992 by which the Government decided not to promote and appoint the petitioner as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. and ordered that the services of the petitioner be placed at the disposal of the Government of Orissa with immediate effect. When the writ petition was pending the Government of India offered to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. on the basis of the records as on 11/02/1991. Accepting this offer the petitioner agreed to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No. 3601/92 was dismissed by the High Court on 20/05/1993 as withdrawn recording the undertaking of the Government of India to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and appointment as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. on the basis of the records as on 11/02/1991. The Court also directed that till the matter was decided by the Central Government there would be stay of the order of the Central Government repatriating the petitioner to his parent State. It is admitted that pursuant to the order dated 20/05/1993 in Cwp 3601/92 the Government of India has considered the case of the petitioner as evidenced by their order dated 23/11/1993 (produced as.Annexure-V Along with the reply of there spondents). The said order shows that after carefully considering the material on record as on 11/02/1991 the Central Government came to the conclusion that further, continuation of the deputation to B.S.F. of the petitioner in a higher capacity will not be in public interest. The learned Counsel for the respondents explains that this decision of the Government of India was a decision not to promote the petitioner as Inspector General of Police in the B.S.F. Challenging the said order dated 23/11/1993 the petitioner has filed Civil Writ PetitionNo. 523/94 before this Court in which Rule D.B: has been issued. The petitioner has no case that his case was not considered by the Government of India within anytime limit stipulated by the Court. In fact no time limit was stipulated by the Court for the said consideration and the decision was taken within a reasonable time. In so far as the Government of India has complied with the direction to consider the petitioner's case based on the records as on 11/02/1991, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondents have committed civil contempt. According tothe petitioner while the matter was pending consideration before the Governmentof India pursuant to the orders of the High Court, his admitted juniors in Ips were promoted as Inspector General of Police. The petitioner submits that the Government of India ought not to have promoted his juniors before taking a decision on his claim for promotion as Inspector General of Police and in so far as the Government chose to promote his juniors as Inspector General of Police before taking a decision in his case pursuant to the orders of the High Court, theGovernment of India has committed civil contempt. In the order dated 20/05/1993 the offer made by the Government of India was only to consider the case ofthe petitioner for promotion on the basis of records as on 11/02/1991.There was no offer or undertaking not to promote any of the juniors of the petitioners to the post of Inspector General of Police before a decision was taken in the petitioner's case. While withdrawing the writ petition, the petitioner did not insist on a direction not to promote his juniors before his cane was considered. On the other hand, it appears that the petitioner sought a direction not to repatriate him to his parent State before taking a decision on his claim for promotion by theGovernment of India. In the order dated 20/05/1993 this Court specifically directed that till the matter was decided by the Central Government there would be stay of the order of the Central Government repatriating him to his parent State.Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that the direction not to repatriatehim to his parent State pending decision by the Central Government on his claim for promotion as Inspector General of Police and the absence of any direction not to promote his juniors before taking a decision in the case of the petitioner are Iconsider significant as far as the allegation of committing civil contempt is concerned. I consider that there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for there spondents. If the petitioner wanted to prevent the promotion of his juniors before a decision was taken in his case, he ought to have insisted for such a direction by the Court while withdrawing his writ petition. Having failed to do so, the petitionercannot now allege that the respondents should be punished for committing Contempt of Court solely on the ground that before taking a decision in his case theGovernment of India made promotions in exigencies of service. The validity of the decision taken by the Government of India on his claim for promotion or the validity and the propriety in promoting his juniors when his claim was pendingdecision, could be questioned by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 523/94which has already been filed by him or in any other appropriate proceedings.There is no willful disobedience of any order of the Court of any willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that there spondents have committed any civil contempt by promoting his juniors as Inspector General of Police before taking a decision on his claim for promotion pursuant to the order dated 20/05/1993 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3601/92. Hence, there is no merit in the civil contempt petition. Civil contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.