N.N.S. Rana vs K.B.L. Mittal & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6697 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       CONT.CAS(C) 317/2009

                                   Decided on : 11th December, 2014
     N.N.S. RANA                                         ..... Petitioner
                        Through:        Mr.Ragvesh Singh, Adv.
                               versus
     K.B.L. MITTAL & ORS.                                  .... Respondent
                        Through:        Mr.V.S.R.Krishna
                                        and Mr.J.K.Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on

account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated

04.12.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the writ petition of the

petitioner was allowed and the punishment which was imposed on the

petitioner was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with all the

consequential benefits.

2. Notice was issued to the respondents on 31.03.2009 to show

cause as to why contempt action for wilful disobedience of the order

passed by the court may not be taken against the respondents. It was

also directed by the learned Judge while issuing the notice on 31.03.2009 that pendency of the present petition will not be an

impediment on the respondents in complying with the order. The

order of the Division Bench by virtue of which the punishment

imposed in departmental proceedings was set aside and he was

reinstated with consequential benefits, was upheld right up to the

Supreme Court.

4. However, during the pendency of the special leave petition in

Supreme Court, an order came to be passed on 26.08.2009 that the

Department has no objection to the release of the amount due to the

petitioner in the instant case subject to his furnishing adequate security.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the apex court on

26.08.2009, it has not been disputed by the petitioner, who has

appeared in person, that an amount of Rs.28,82,146/- has been paid to

him subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the

Registrar of this court as recorded in the order dated 23.09.2009.

5. The petitioner has challenged the computation of the aforesaid

amount and has stated that some more money is payable to him in

principal as well as on account of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to interest on gratuity amount as well as interest on account of the

delayed payment.

6. I am not impressed with this submission of the petitioner that he

is entitled to interest on gratuity or interest on the delayed payment

having regard to the fact that this is a contempt petition. Even the

quantum of amount payable to the petitioner cannot be permitted to be

adjudicated in a contempt petition. The contempt action is to be

initiated against a party only if there is disobedience and this

disobedience must be contumacious, wilful and deliberate.

7. In the order granting consequential reliefs to the petitioner, there

is no mention of payment of interest either on gratuity or on the

amount of arrears payable to the petitioner by way of consequential

benefits. Therefore, this court cannot enlarge the scope of the

impugned order so as to give the benefit of interest on any score to the

petitioner.

8. Similarly, based on the same analogy, even if the petitioner is

disputing the quantum of payment made to him, that cannot be

subjected to a minute analysis in a contempt petition. The petitioner is free to seek redressal on all these scores in accordance with law if his

grievances still subsist.

9. The second submission of the petitioner is that he has been given

a medical card/identity card which does not mention his designation

from which he has superannuated and thus when the petitioner travels

in Railways, he does not get the actual benefits available to him. This

submission of the petitioner that his designation is not reflected in the

medical card/identity card also seems to be absurd.

10. The question which arises for consideration is that the petitioner

is entitled to certain medical benefits or otherwise, for which he is

required to have a card from his erstwhile employer. It is not disputed

by him that such a card has been issued to him. There is no statutory

requirement, much less is there a direction, that the designation of the

petitioner be mentioned in the said card. There is also no mention in

this regard in the order of which contempt has been alleged.

Therefore, this is also beyond the scope of the present contempt

petition and cannot be considered.

11. The third submission which has been made by the petitioner is

that he ought to have been promoted to Additional Secretary and a member of the Railway Board and the said promotional benefit has not

been given to him.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention

of the court to the fact that the petitioner's ACRs as were prevalent

were considered by the review DPC and he was found unfit for

promotion.

13. This part of the order by respondent No.2 having been declared

unfit for promotion, has been assailed by the petitioner in an

independent OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and

therefore this benefit of promotion to the post of Additional Secretary

cannot be considered to be a consequential benefit to be granted to the

petitioner in the present contempt petition.

14. If at all, the petitioner feels aggrieved, it gives rise to a fresh

cause of action for which he has availed of appropriate remedy before

the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, this also does not

warrant any further action to be taken by this court.

15. Lastly, the petitioner has contended that he is entitled to a

pension of Rs.39,500/-for which a PPO was issued and later on the

respondents have reduced the pension of the petitioner to Rs.33,500/- and this discrepancy in the calculation of the pension deserves to be

rectified by directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner at

the rate of Rs.39,500/-.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention

of the court to the compliance report/affidavit filed by them on the

second occasion wherein in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, it has been

stated that the first PPO has been issued on account of some

miscalculation and accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was

recalculated according to the statutory benefits available to the him

which comes to Rs.33,500/-.

17. This is the amount to which the petitioner is entitled by way of

pension and not the amount which was inadvertently reflected in the

first PPO.

18. This fact, though has been contested by the petitioner, but,

nevertheless, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a

pension of Rs.39,500/ or Rs.33,500/- cannot be adjudicated in a

contempt petition.

19. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has been paid a

pension of Rs.33,500/- and in case he feels that he is still entitled to get a pension of Rs.39,500/-, then he may have his grievances adjudicated

by a competent court or a forum, but certainly it cannot be adjudicated

in the present contempt petition.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that none of the points raised

by petitioner are justified. As a matter of fact, since the petitioner

seems to have acquired a degree in law thus having legal assistance

available at will, he has unnecessarily taken up colossal time of the

court and prolonged the matter for the last more than five years. The

file has become so bulky and thick that one had to fend for the papers.

Such a practice of keeping a matter alive on one ground or the other

only to get nitty grities decided in a contempt petition, cannot be

permitted to be done.

21. In the instant case, the petitioner had tried to do so by seeking

repeated adjournments and in normal circumstances, I would have

dismissed the petition with heavy cost on account of the fact that the

petitioner has wasted colossal time of the court, however, keeping in

view the fact that the petitioner is an old person, I refrain from doing

so.

22. Accordingly, the present contempt petition being totally misconceived is dismissed. The contempt notice is discharged.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 11, 2014 dm