Delhi High Court
Sh.Harish Bhandari vs Union Of India & Others on 16 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2490/2010
%
Date of Decision: 16.04.2010
Sh.Harish Bhandari .... Petitioner
Through Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India & others .... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchit Mishra & Ms.Sonia Mathur,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th December,
2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in O.A. No.1201 of 2009, titled as 'Sh.Harish Bhandari v.
Union of India and others' dismissing his application for initiating
contempt proceedings against the respondents, and to force the
respondents to implement the order dated 11th August, 2009 passed in
O.A. No.1201/2009.
The plea of the petitioner is that he had worked for more than
124 days on the basis of documents filed by the petitioner. The
documents of the petitioner has been found to be fictitious and based
on forged documents his claim had not been entertained. In the
circumstances, it has been held that further probe is not permissible in
the realm of contempt jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain orders
allegedly issued on behalf of the Director on the basis of which it is
alleged by the petitioner that he had worked for more than 124 days.
The said order had been held to be fictitious and forged, and in the
circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in holding that fresh
directions cannot given to the respondents to re-probe the matter, and
to hold that the petitioner had worked more than 124 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a number
of original applications were filed by the petitioner, and the matter was
sent to the respondents to consider the pleas of the petitioner for
regularization in terms of Scheme 1992 and 1994.
Though the respondents were directed to consider the pleas and
contentions of the petitioner, however, it has been repeatedly held by
the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization as
the documents relied by the petitioner have been held to be forged and
fictitious. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents
had committed contempt of the Court in not complying with the order
as has been alleged by the petitioner. For implementing the order dated
11th August, 2009 whereby the respondents were directed to consider
the case of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot contend that he is
entitled for regularization.
The petitioner has also relied on a decision of this Court dated
15th January, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.1761 of 2008, titled as
'Sh.Chaman Lal v. Union of India & others'. Perusal of the facts and
circumstances of the precedent relied on, it is apparent that it is
distinguishable inasmuch as in the Chaman Lal (Supra) the applicant
was enjoying a particular pay scale which was liable to be protected
despite dismissal of the contempt petition. In the writ petition, it was
held that the pay scale of the petitioner had to be protected. In
contradiction, the claim of the petitioner has been found to be
untenable pursuant to the direction given in different original
applications filed by the petitioner, and consequently, the petitioner
cannot draw any support on the basis of the ratio of the said case.
This cannot be disputed that exercise of power for Contempt is
comparatively a rarity and should be used sparingly and in the larger
interest of society and for proper administration of justice. It is also true
and noticed that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to
amount to a " Civil Contempt". The element of willingness and intention
is an indispensable requirement to take action. It is also true that if two
interpretations are possible and the action of alleged contemnor
pertains to one of such interpretations which will raise doubts about
the willful nature of conduct, if raised, contempt will not be made out.
In the circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled for the directions
sought by him for his regularization on the basis of the documents
which could not be relied upon. We have also perused those documents
and on the basis of the same, the petitioner cannot be allowed to
contend that he had worked for more than 124 days and he is entitled
for regularization.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or
irregularity in the order of the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 16, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG,J.
'VK'
