Delhi High Court
K L Bhasin vs Milind Kharat & Ors on 18 April, 2017
32
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 468/2016
K L BHASIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate.
versus
MILIND KHARAT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ananya De, Advocate for Mr. A.K.
De, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 18th April, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of order dated 13th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) 4293/2014 whereby
respondent No.1 was directed to accept resignation of petitioner dated 17 th
November, 2009 and was further directed to pay the dues payable to the
petitioner as a resigned employee within three months after deducting three
months notice pay.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that vide e-mail dated 06th July,
2015, respondent No.1 denied the petitioner any benefits in accordance with
amended Scheme 2010. He states that though the petitioner gave his
resignation vide letter dated 17th November, 2009, yet the same was
accepted only after the order dated 13th March, 2015 was passed in W.P.(C)
4293/2014.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further states that as the resignation of
the petitioner had been accepted after the amended Scheme 2010 ha d been
implemented, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Scheme as well as for
other benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that resignation of the
petitioner was directed to be accepted w.e.f. 17th November, 2009 and not
when the order was passed. Consequently, according to her, no additional
benefits are payable to the petitioner.
5. It is settled law that the contempt of Court is a quasi criminal act and
the standard of proof required is that of the criminal proceeding and the
breach or wilful disobedience has to be established beyond all reasonable
doubt. In fact, the Supreme Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam vs. L.K. Tripathi and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 417 has held that
expression wilful excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts
or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. It was further
held that the petitioner who complains of breach of the Court's order must
allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order.
6. Since in the present case, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to
amended Scheme 2010 and/or any other benefit was neither argued nor
adjudicated upon, this Court is of the view that respondent cannot be held
guilty of contempt.
7. This Court is also of the opinion that in contempt jurisdiction it cannot
hold anyone guilty by the process of deduction and that too on the basis of
surmises and conjectures.
8. Accordingly, present contempt petition is dismissed and notices
issued are discharged.
9. However, if the petitioner is of the opinion that he has not been paid
his full dues, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law. Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 18, 2017
js
