Delhi High Court
Suresh Pathrela vs A.K. Mishra And Anr. on 22 February, 2007
Author: S Muralidhar
Bench: S Muralidhar
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This contempt petition was filed by the petitioner on 29.6.2005 complaining of non-payment of salary by the respondents-contemnors to the petitioner for the months of May, 2005 and consequential benefits including arrears and costs of Rs. 25,000/- as directed in the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition (C) 6805 of 2002 filed by the petitioner herein. Learned Single Judge had, by the said order, quashed the impugned order dated 28.5.1998 by which the petitioner had been removed from the services of the respondent-Bank and directed the release of consequential benefits.
2. It was the petitioner's case that although he reported back for duty on 3.5.2005, he was not assigned any work. He filed a further application being CM No. 6134 of 2005 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 16.5.2005 declining to pass any order in regard to assigning of work.
3. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was heard on 2.8.2005 and the following order was passed:
LPA 1168-69/2005 & CM No 8509/2005
A request for pass over is made by learned Counsel for the respondent. Taking into consideration the heavy board of the Court today, it is not possible to pass over the matter.
List on 6th September, 2005.
Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the contempt proceedings shall not be pressed till the next date of hearing.
4. Thereafter the said appeal was allowed by a judgment dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No 1168-69 of 2005 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Suresh Pathrella). The judgment dated 28.4.2005 of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
5. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 19.10.2006 (Suresh Pathrella v. Oriential Bank of Commerce) .
6. A review petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.2.2007.
7. Mr. R.K. Dhawan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that notwithstanding the fact that the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court and order of the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to ask for compliance with the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge for the period till it was set aside. In other words, the petitioner wants the respondent to pay him the salary for the period beginning from the date on which the petitioner reported for duty till the date the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that when the appeal was admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court an interim order was passed on 16.12.2006 to the effect that the petitioner should not be removed from his services. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rukmani Rani v. Bhimdev Chopra 1980 RLR (note) 49, of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. v. Jawahar lal and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Singh v. Bhikam Chand Jain and in Mohammad Idris and Anr. v. Rustam Jehangir Bapuji . In short, his submission is that the respondent should be punished for contempt of the judgment dated 28.4.2005 of the learned Single Judge till such time it was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Bank could not be faulted for filing an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He points out that after the order dated 2.8.2005 was passed the question of compliance thereafter with the judgment under appeal did not arise. He submits that the appeal was finally allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the petitioner's appeal against the said order of the Division Bench was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, accordingly, submits that this contempt petition lacks merits.
9. To this Court, it appears that the petitioner cannot seek to rely any longer on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.4.2005 when it has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.12.2005 and further the decision of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal on 19.10.2006. There is no question now of requiring the respondent to comply with any portion of the order of the learned Single Judge.
10. The Court, therefore, is not required to examine whether the petitioner reported for duty, a fact that has been disputed by learned Counsel for the respondent.
11. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application here since in each of the said cases, the contempt proceedings had been asked to be disposed of before the final decision. Here, on account of the events that have unfolded after the filing of the contempt petition, as noticed hereinabove, the contempt petition has been rendered infructuous. No relief has been prayed for in the contempt petition can be granted.
12. In that view of the matter, this contempt petition is without merit and is dismissed as such.
