Rekhaben Shaileshbhai Parmar vs Hiral Thaker Or Successor In ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10673 Guj

    C/MCA/885/2019                                  CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 885 of 2019

                 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 558 of 2016


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== REKHABEN SHAILESHBHAI PARMAR Versus HIRAL THAKER or SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE ========================================================== Appearance:

MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH(773) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

Date : 05/08/2021 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the opponents.

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

1. The applicant is before this Court, seeking invocation of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved with the non-compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 2016, Dated: 26.06.2019, on the part of the respondent-Municipality.

1.1 The applicant was the original petitioner, whereas, the opponents were the original respondents in the main matter and she is before this Court in the following factual background:

2. The applicant raised industrial dispute, seeking direction against respondent-Municipality for extending the benefits on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years' service. The same was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 3 of 2003. The said reference came to be allowed and the respondent-Municipality was directed to grant higher pay-scale to the applicant on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years' service.

2.1 The aforesaid judgment and award, Dated: 30.06.2012, came to be challenged by the respondent-Municipality by way of Special Civil Application No. 14598 of 2012, which came to be rejected by this Court (Coram: Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, J.) on 17.06.2013.

2.1.1 While rejecting the petition filed by the respondent- Municipality, the Court observed and held thus:

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

"7.Considering the totality of the facts, this Court finds that, there was no occasion for the petitioner Municipality to be aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, further grant of a pay scale to a workman, as per the policy of Government, cannot be termed as a policy decision being taken by any Authority of the Government, and Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 does not have any applicability in the present case. Further, none of these contention were taken before the Labour Court and therefore, the petitioner Municipality can be estopped from raising such contentions but with a view to see that, if the respondent workmen were not entitled to and are granted relief by the Labour Court, ultimately Government exchequer would suffer, which should not happen and therefore, these contentions are permitted to be taken before this Court and on examining the same, this Court finds that those contentions are not tenable as recorded above."

2.2 It appears that the applicant, thereafter, preferred an application for contempt being Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2014, requesting this Court to punish the respondent-Chief Officer, Karamsad Municipality for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the judgment and award of the Labour Court dated 30.06.2012 so also the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Dated: 17.06.2013, in Special Civil Application No. 14598 of 2012.

2.2.1 The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. M.R. Shah, J. as his Lordship then was, and Mr. R.P. Dholaria, J.) issued notice on 15.01.2014 in the said proceedings and made the same returnable on 06.02.2014, when, at the request of the respondent, it was adjourned to 26.02.2014, where, the calculation of the amount due and payable to the applicant was directed to be placed before the Court, with the further direction that the judgment and award of the Labour Court

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

was needed to be complied with, failing which, the concerned Chief Officer of the respondent-Municipality was to remain personally present before the Court.

2.2.2 In wake of the above, an affidavit came to be filed to explain the complaint. However, as the Court was not satisfied with the affidavit, notice was issued, making the same returnable on 26.02.2014. The Court also noted that the Chief Officer concerned had made false statements and even tried to mislead the Court.

2.2.3 It appears that an assurance was given by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Municipality of handing over the cheque to the applicant before the Second Session, which was not adhered to and the cheques, as ensured before the Court, were not handed over to all the persons and out of total 22 person, only 6 persons were handed over the cheques. However, an objection was raised to the same by the learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, that without handing over the cheques even to the said 6 persons, their signatures had been obtained. The Court also found that another story was also concocted to improvise the version, however, the same was not found correct by the Court. Then, the learned Advocate, Mr. Premal Joshi, who represented the respondent-Municipality chose not to represent it and the learned Advocate, Mr. Shirish Joshi, appeared for and on behalf of the respondent-Municipality, on the next adjourned date and an additional affidavit for and on behalf of the Chief Officer was also filed, where, it was stated that a cheque of Rs.10,000/- was given to each person, totaling to Rs.22,34,034/- and additionally an amount of Rs.32,74,678/-

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

was also paid.

2.2.4 In this background, the Division Bench of this Court held the Chief Officer guilty of the contempt for non-compliance of the judgment and award passed in Reference (LCA) No. 3 of 2003 and confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Chief Officer was directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the costs.

2.2.5 The relevant observations of the Division Bench of this Court reads as under:

"6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present-application succeeds. The respondent is held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand dated 30.6.2012 passed in Reference (LCA) No.3 of 2003 confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.6.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.14598 of 2012 as well as by making false and incorrect statement before this Court and by holding the respondent guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, is directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/- to be deposited with the Registry of this Court and is also further directed to deposit the cost of present proceedings which is quantified at Rs.50,000/- to be borne by the respondent contemnor personally, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today and on such deposit by the respondent contemnor, Registry is directed to pay Rs.1000/- to each of the applicants/employees by Account payee Cheque and the balance amount to be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."

2.3 It is the grievance on the part of the applicant that the services of the applicant came to be illegally and arbitrarily

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

terminated by the respondent-Municipality, after extending the benefits.

2.3.1 The applicant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal being Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014 in Complaint (IT) No. 17 of 2012, which also ended in favour of the applicant and against the respondent-Municipality and the Tribunal directed it to reinstate the applicant on the original post with continuity of service, but, without back-wages.

2.3.2 The respondent-Municipality challenged the said order of the Tribunal before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2016, where, the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, J.), while, rejecting the said petition on 06.04.2016 in no uncertain terms stated that this was a ploy on the part of the respondent-Municipality to get rid of the applicant-petitioner.

2.3.3 Profitable, it would be to reproduce the relevant observations made in the order of this Court dated 06.04.2016:

"4.7 It is noted that, both the learned advocates have taken this Court through the pleadings in detail, wherein there is a Reference to more than one litigation between these two contesting parties. It is evident that the petitioner Municipality has attempted to get rid of the respondent, in whatever manner, it was possible. The Tribunal has taken note of the material before it and has found that the discontinuance of service of the workman was not only illegal but lacked bona fide as well. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, even that finding of the Tribunal is also well founded and no interference is required in that regard also.

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

4.8 The argument of the Municipality that no procedure was followed at the time of initial appointment of the respondent needs to be rejected in view of the settled position of law that a litigant can not be permitted to agitate that it is he, who had committed some illegality and therefore the other side is not entitled to relief. In this regard, reference needs to be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust versus Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel reported in (2012) 9 SCC 310."

2.3.4 The Court also, categorically, held that the one, who commits illegality, cannot be permitted to agitate that because of such illegality committed by it, the other side is not entitled to get any benefit by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in 'BHARTIYA SEVA SAMAJ VS. YOGESH AMBALAL PATEL', (2012) 9 SCC 310. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the findings and observations of the Apex Court in 'BHARTIYA SEVA SAMAJ (supra):

"8. It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. (Vide: Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 828; Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3609; Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2976; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889; and State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 800)."

2.3.5 Thereafter, the respondent-Municipality challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by way of Letters Patent

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Appeal No. 558 of 2016, where, the LPA Bench was in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition of the respondent- Municipality, and thereby, the appeal was not entertained, as the one being without any merit.

2.3.5.1 Then, the respondent-Municipality filed review / recall application in LPA No. 558 of 2016 and urged for re-hearing of the matter and also to remand the same to the Tribunal for its consideration, afresh. Such a request was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. K.M. Thaker, Mr. V.M. Pancholi, J.J.), having regard to the fact that due to some inadvertence, an error had crept in the observations made by this Court at Paragraph-15 of its order dated 26.07.2016, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 2016. When the said matter came-up for hearing on 26.06.2018, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Municipality, which was the appellant, therein, in the presence of the Chief Officer, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the LPA.

2.3.5.2 According to him, the appeal was dismissed for default.

2.4 It is the say of the applicant that, since, the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, directing reinstatement of the applicant on the original post with continuity of service, but, without back-wages, was confirmed by the LPA Bench, the respondent-Municipality was under an obligation to comply with the same, and therefore, she was reinstated. However, it is her grievance that, though, she is

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

reinstated, she is not receiving the regular salary and benefits of the Higher Grade, as per the order of this Court and instead, she is getting only Rs.4,000/- towards monthly salary and this, according to her, amounts to contempt.

2.4.1 It is, further, urged that despite of the fact that the Chief Officer of the respondent-Municipality was held guilty in the earlier contempt proceedings, the applicant is being paid consolidated monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- only.

2.4.2 According to the petitioner, the said salary of Rs.4,000/- is less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the government, as she is working as Community Organizer and the said post is sanctioned by the government, and therefore, it is a permanent post, which is available with the respondent- Municipality.

2.5 A request, therefore, is made to grant the prayers prayed for in this petition.

2.6 At this stage, it may be observed that Mr.Bharat Rathwa, Chief Officer, Karamsad Nagarpalika, who took over the charge subsequently since not joined as party respondent although his tenure also continues, he is not made party in the contempt proceedings, no order against him is passed.

3. Affidavit-in-reply is filed for and on behalf of respondent No.1, tendering unconditional apology, in case, some un- intentional action or omission had amounted to the contempt of the Court. It is also urged that there is no breach of the order of this Court, Dated: 06.04.2016, and respondent No.1

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

is bound to comply with the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 31392 of 2016. According to the deponent, the president of the respondent-Municipality was not a party to the said proceedings and no notice had been issued to him after filing the present petition. It is, further, urged that there are material facts and evidences, which have been suppressed and which would require to be looked into.

3.1 According to the respondent Reference (LCA) No. 3 of 2003 was originally filed by 34 employees, for getting the benefit of Higher Grade / Pay-Scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service. The present applicant was appointed by the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board as a Community Organizer under the Golden Jubilee Urban Employment Scheme in the year 2000 and was made a party to the said reference. It is urged that the present applicant requires to complete 9 years service. It is also urged that, initially, one Meghavi Institute was handed over the responsibility to appoint the Community Organizer in various municipalities and the present applicant was also appointed by the said Institute for the period of one yaer on fixed monthly salary of Rs.2000/-, on contract basis. It is, therefore, urged that she is not entitled to get the benefits of the award filed by the Shramjivi Karmchari Sangarsh Samiti being Reference (LCA) No. 3 of 2003.

3.2 It is, further, the say of respondent No.1 that the complaint being IT Reference No. 6 of 2014 is filed before the Tribunal in another Reference being Reference No. 17 of 2012, which is still pending for adjudication. Reference No. 17 of 2012 was filed, claiming regularization of the services as well as to get the benefits of 6th Pay Commission . The

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

applicant also had preferred Reference No. 454 of 2012 before the Industrial Tribunal, seeking similar reliefs and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 05.04.2016.

3.3 It is urged that after the rejection of the said Reference, by the Tribunal, yet, another reference for the very cause of action was filed before the Tribunal being Reference No. 17 of 2012, and pending the main reference, Complaint No. 6 of 2014, the applicant filed under Section 33(A) of the Act, alleging that pending the reference, her services came to be terminated.

3.4 According to respondent No.1, the applicant did not disclose anything with regard to her original appointment and other events, which occurred from the year 2000 to 2014 in the aforesaid application. It is the say of respondent No.1 that the applicant cannot be termed as an employee of the respondent-Municipality, since; her salary was being paid by the Municipal Finance Board. Thereafter, vide circular dated 05.08.2002, the respondent-Municipality was authorized to appoint the Community Organizer on contract basis. Then, State Urban Housing and Urban Development directed that the appointment of Community Organizers be made by District Development Agency and a circular to that effect also came to be issued on 19.08.2002.

3.5 It is urged that either by mistake or due to other political reasons, the respondent-Municipality passed the Resolution No. 24/2002, Dated: 09.09.2002, regularizing the applicant in service and also to give her the benefit of both the pay commissions. It is urged, however, that the applicant is not an

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

employee of the respondent-Municipality, as no procedure was followed, while appointing her. It is also urged that the said resolution was not approved by the Director of Respondent- Municipality.

3.5.1 It appears that one Kala Jetha Makwana filed an appeal being First Appeal No. 4 of 2014 before the District Collector, Anand, and challenged the aforesaid resolution, whereupon, the District Collector suspended the resolution passed by the respondent-Municipality in exercise of the powers under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act on 09.02.2015. Against the said order, Special Civil Application No. 224 of 2016 was filed, where, no interim relief is granted and the same is pending for adjudication.

3.5.2 It is, further, contended that the appointment of the applicant as Community Organizer, although, was made at the instructions of the Municipal Finance Board, initially, with the Scheme having been discontinued, the Chief Officers of all the municipalities had been informed to relieve the fixed pay or contractual employees with effect from 01.04.2014. Accordingly, the applicant had been intimated that her services shall come to an end on 07.08.2014.

3.5.3 The present applicant, therefore, filed the complaint No. 6 of 2014 in pending Reference No. 14 of 2012 before the Tribunal, alleging that her services were wrongly terminated, pending the Reference. According to the deponent, the Tribunal did not consider the object of the SJSRY Scheme and committed a grave error in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner on her original post with continuity of service, but,

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

without back-wages. Since, such a Scheme had ceased to operate on instructions received from the government and her appointment being purely on contractual basis, the direction for reinstatement was a serious error on the part of the Tribunal.

3.6 Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent- Municipality preferred Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2015, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2016. Against the same, the respondent-Municipality preferred LPA No. 558 of 2016, which also came to be dismissed on 26.07.2016. It is urged that, since, certain evidences were not considered, MCA No. 1 of 2016 came to be filed for review / recall, which was allowed on 25.11.2015 and the matter was posted for hearing on 27.06.2016.

3.7 It is, further, the say of the respondent that during the pendency of LPA, the issue of payment under Section 17(3) of the Act arose and a sum of Rs.78,000/- came to be paid to the applicant. In the meanwhile, government introduced a new Scheme, namely DAYNULF, for appointment of the Community Organizers, and therefore, the respondent-Municipality invited the applicant to join the services under the said Scheme.

3.8. It is alleged that instead of collecting the cheque for Rs.78,000/- for payment under Section 17B of the ID Act, during the pendency of the LPA, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 19.05.2019, requesting for reinstatement on the original post, knowing fully well that the original post was abolished by the government, as the erstwhile scheme, known

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

as SJSRY.

3.9 The respondent-Municipality, on 10.05.2019, stated that, although, the petitioner was called for joining the services under the new Scheme, she left the premises on 19.05.2019 and she did not give attendance report. This fact was also informed to the learned Advocate for the applicant by a letter dated 14.05.2019.

3.10 According to respondent-Municipality, thus, that there has been due compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is urged that the appointment of the applicant on the post of Community Organizer was made under DAYNULF Scheme and she made false allegations against the officers and employees in the communication addressed to the Municipality through the learned Advocate representing her. Thereby, all the allegations made in the communications dated 22nd and 26th, May, 2019 and 16th June, 2019 have been denied. It is urged that, thereafter, she resumed duties and also accepted the cheque for Rs.78,000/-. She is presently serving as Community Organizer. However, such appointment of hers is not against the regular set-up. The advertisement, interview and the approval of the competent authority shall be necessary for the regular set-up and no such procedure was followed in case of the present applicant, and therefore, there is no question of giving her appointment and hence, no grievance should be made. She is being paid monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and she cannot claim the regular salary and benefits of higher grade, as no Court has passed such orders, till date to grant her the same. There is nothing done, according to the deponent, to overreach the process of law

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

and to commit contempt of the order of this Court. She also tendered an unconditional apology.

4. Affidavit-in-rejoinder also came to be filed by the applicant, where, Paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed by the respondent, which states that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this application, as per the resolution (LCA) No. 3 of 2003, ,as she was appointed for a specific fixed period and on fixed monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-, is denied. It is also urged that such a statement is made on the oath to mislead the Court with an oblique motive, and therefore, the respondent-municipality is liable to be punished for making incorrect statement before this Court. In wake of the award passed by the Labour Court, Anand, the respondent- Municipality was directed to grant the benefit of Higher Grade to the applicant on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years' service. The date of the judgment and award is 30.06.2012 and as detailed earlier, the petition of the respondent- Municipality being Special Civil Application No. 14598 of 2012 came to be rejected on 17.06.2013. Thus, despite the fact that the award is confirmed by this Court, the respondent- Municipality chose not to comply with the same. It is also urged that in the earlier contempt petition, the Chief Officer was held guilty for the contempt by this Court and exemplary costs also had been imposed on him. Thereafter, she was to be granted the benefit of Higher Grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years' service and therefore also, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-Municipality to say that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs granted in the award of the Labour Court. It is also urged that the Reference was not rejected on the ground that no evidence was placed before the

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, but, it was on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent both are residing with the Anand District, and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, would have jurisdiction and not the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. It is, thereby, urged that the said Reference being Industrial Reference No. 454 of 2012 was not decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, on merits, and therefore, the same would not constitute res judicata and the applicant would be entitled to raise such a demand before the Court concerned.

4.1 It is, further, the say of the applicant that her services came to be terminated on 08.08.2014 and till then, she was getting the fixed monthly salary. Her pay-scale fixed by the respondent-Municipality is also annexed with her affidavit-in- rejoinder. It is, further, her say that the termination of her services by the Municipality, since, was held to be illegal, the Tribunal directed her reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service, but, without backwages.

4.2 The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, in Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014, Dated: 19.12.2015, is amply clear, where the Tribunal has held that the applicant was working on the permanently approved post and her pay-scale was also approved by the Treasury Office of the State. The aforesaid award, Dated: 19.12.2015, was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2016, where, the Court considered all the aspects, once again and rejected the said petition. Therefore, raising the very contentions and averments by the respondent-Municipality is nothing, but, an attempt to mislead the Court, when, in fact, the LPA Bench

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

has concluded in favour of the applicant. It is, therefore, urged that the respondent is liable to be punished for not complying with the orders of this Court.

5. Additional affidavit is also filed for and on behalf of respondent No.1 by one Shri. Bharatsinh Udesinh Rathva, the Chief Officer, Karamsad Municipality. He has stated that, earlier, one Ms. Hiral Thaker was the Chief Officer and she has been appointed on contract basis, after his retirement from the post of Mamlatdar. He also has tendered an unconditional apology for any unintentional inaction or omission on the part of the respondent, which may amount to the contempt of the order of this Court. According to him, the respondent-Municipality has complied with the order passed by the Tribunal on 19.12.2015. It is, further, his say that a number of reminders were sent to the applicant to join her duties and she consequently reported on her duty on 05.07.2019.

5.1 According to him, the applicant has filed the present contempt petition on 20.08.2019, by suppressing the fact of her reinstatement in service. The applicant has been reinstated on her original post of Community Organizer with continuity of service, as directed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, and her termination from contractual post was on 08.08.2014, which was set aside by the Tribunal. The order passed in Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014 was in pending Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012, which was filed under Section 33A of the ID Act for regularization and fixation of salary, as per the 6th Pay Commission, which was pending. It is urged that she was suspended from the post of Community

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Organizer on 08.05.2013, as she went on making false and frivolous allegations against several officers of the respondent-Municipality. Her suspension order was passed on 08.08.2016. It is also urged that the Reference filed by her being Reference (IT) No. 454 of 2012, before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, was dismissed on 05.04.2016 and suppressing the said fact, Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad. It is averred that she is not conducting the main Reference, since, 2012, where, the issue of her salary is being agitated by her. Had she been appointed, according to the deponent, by the respondent- Municipality after following the due procedure, there was no reason for her to file the Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012, seeking regularization and salary as per the 6 th Pay Commission. It is, therefore, urged that, as such, her appointment is not approved by the government under the Scheme and her salary is being paid by the respondent- Municipality, as she has been reinstated in compliance of the order / direction of the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad. It is, thus, urged that the fact remains that the directions of the Tribunal have been duly complied with.

5.2 According to him, the present petition is filed to pressurize the respondent-Municipality to treat her as the permanent sanctioned set-up, which is not the direction of the Tribunal in Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014. For regularization of her services and fixing of her salary, as per the 6 th Pay Commission, a reference being Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012 has been filed, which is pending, till date. It is, therefore, urged that she could not have raised dispute with regard to her salary in the present petition, as the same is not directed

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

by the learned Tribunal.

5.3 It is also urged that the applicant is mixing two separate issues, as she has prayed for regularization of the period from March, 2002 to September, 2005 in the main petition, which was not the subject-matter of Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014. It is, further, his say that instead of challenging the order passed in Reference (IT) No. 4 of 2014 by the District Collector, under Section 158 (3) of the Act, before the State Government, the applicant filed Special Civil Application No. 5224 of 2015, where, no interim relief is granted and the matter is pending for final hearing.

5.4 It is urged that the challenge made to the order passed by the District Collector is still pending, and therefore, the respondent-Municipality cannot pay the salary, as per the said order. It is, further, his say that the respondent published advertisement for filling-up several posts of Community Organizer on the regular set-up. However, the rules or recruitment and the promotion were not approved by the government and therefore, the process has not been initiated, yet. Subsequently, the advertisement published on 02.10.2014 was cancelled by another advertisement published on 09.10.2014.

6. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, and learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, extensively, who have argued not only along the line of the memo of the application but also keeping in mind the law on the subject and the affidavits filed before this Court, to substantiate their respective stands.

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

6.1 It is, thus, clear from the entire gamut of facts that the petitioner was originally appointed by the Municipal Finance Board as a Community Organizer under the Golden Jubilee Urban Employment Scheme in the year 2000, where, the power of appointment was given to the Respondent- Municipality and the General Board passed resolution on 26.03.2002, appointing the applicant as Community Organizer. On 22.05.2003, Resolution No. 71/2004 came to be passed, whereby, this time was extended upto 31.03.2003. The respondent-Municipality passed the Resolution No. 24/02, on 09.09.2005, making the present applicant permanent, with effect from September, 2003 and she was extended the benefits of revision of pay, as per 4th Pay Commission.

6.2 It appears that the Gujarat Mazdoor Sangh raised a dispute for and on behalf of the employees, working in the respondent-Municipality, which was registered as Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012 before the Tribunal, where, the interim reliefs were sought and the order came to be passed on 27.09.2012, directing the respondent-Municipality to maintain the status quo. The present applicant and the other workmen in Reference (IT) NO. 17 of 2012, then, filed Complaint No. 6 of 2014 before the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, under Section 33-A of the Act. On 08.05.2013, the applicant was placed under suspension and her services came to be terminated on 08.08.2014, without following the any procedure prescribed under the law and without conducting any departmental proceedings.

6.3 Therefore, an appeal being Appeal No. 4 of 2014, was

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

filed before the District Collector, Anand, challenging the Resolution No. 24 of 2002, Dated: 09.09.2005, under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. However, the present applicant was not joined as a party in Appeal No.4 of 2014, though, she was a directly affected party. When, she came to know about the same, she moved an application for the necessary documents and the Collector, on 09.01.2015, passed the order in Appeal No. 4 of 2014. On 16.05.2015, the applicant moved an application under the RTI Act and since, without availing an opportunity of hearing or without assigning any reason, the order was passed by the Collector, a challenge was made to the same by the present applicant. On 19.12.2015, the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, passed the award, directing the reinstatement of the applicant in service on the original post with continuity of service, but, without back-wages. After the applicant received certain information under the RTI Act between 22.02.2016 to 11.03.2016, she preferred Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2016, seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2015, passed in Appeal No. 4 of 2014 by the Collector. In the said matter, the Court, while holding in favour of the applicant, noticed that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on 26.03.2002 and she was confirmed on the said post on 27.10.2003. The order of pay fixation was also passed on 27.10.2003. She also passed the government approved LSGD exam and she was granted additional increment by the Municipality vide its order dated 01.12.2020, as per the Scheme of the Government and the same was approved by the Local Fund Audit on 23.10.2012 and an entry was made in the Service Book of the applicant by the respondent-Municipality. There was also an order for advertisement dated 01.06.2010 to be published for

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

filling-up various posts by the respondent-Municipality, where, Sr. No. 9 is for the post of Community Organizer, i.e. the post on which the applicant has been working for years. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent-Municipality to intimate the applicant for the said posts or the post on which, she was working, and thereafter, her services came to be terminated.

6.4 This Court also noted the earlier litigations by and between the parties and held and observed that it is quite evident that the respondent-Municipality attempted to get rid of the applicant in whatever, possible manner. The note also was taken of the materials brought on record and the Court found that the decision of the respondent-Municipality, terminating the services of the applicant, is illegal. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court found that the findings of the Tribunal were well- founded. The Court also disapproved the stand of the respondent-Municipality on the ground that it has no right to agitate such a stand, as their own illegality cannot affect the entitlement of the applicant.

6.5 It appears that the respondent- Municipality preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 2016, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, where, the Division Bench noted that the applicant was confirmed on the post of Community Organizer vide order dated 27.10.2005 and the said Act is also not disputed by the respondent-Municipality. Then, the order to fix her pay was passed on 27.10.2005, itself. In this regard, the only defence advanced by the respondent-Municipality was that it committed a mistake.

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

However, the Court did not accept the same on the ground that the learned Single Judge had examined the said aspect and the applicant was given her first Higher Grade with effect from 16.08.2012, as per the Scheme of the Government, Dated: 23.08.2020. Further, there is approval endorsement of the audit authorities to the same in the Service Book of the applicant.

6.6 It is, further, revealed from the record that that Urban Housing and Urban Development passed an order on 16.10.2010 with regard to the set-up post of Community Organizer, where, the applicant was working for years. The Director of Municipality also passed an order on 23.12.2011 to that effect, and therefore, the order of discontinuation of service of the applicant, Dated: 08.08.2014, when is examined in the aforesaid background, the Court held that it was not appropriate nor an acceptable action on the part of the respondent-Municipality to say that the appointment given to her on the post of Community Organizer was no longer required, and therefore, the Committee of the respondent- Municipality passed a resolution of discontinuation of her services. The Court, in no uncertain terms, held that the Tribunal rightly directed the reinstatement of the applicant on the original post with continuity of service, but, without back- wages, in the given circumstances. It, thus, held that the dis- continuation of the services of the applicant was illegal.

6.7. The Court also held that the order of the Collector, Dated: 09.01.2015, when passed, the discontinuation of her services was not in existence and neither the same was agitated before the Tribunal nor before the learned Single

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Judge, any such contention was raised at the relevant point of time and the same was raised, for the first time, before the Division Bench, which was not held sustainable.

6.8 It, however, emerges from the record that the order of the Collector was, in fact, produced before the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and the attention was also drawn and objection was also raised before this Court and that is the reason, why this Court noticed inadvertent error in the observations made at Paragraph-15 of the said order of the Division Bench, Dated: 16.07.2016 and recalled the order, directing the re-listing of the appeal in regular course.

6.9 However, when the said appeal was listed for hearing, the same came to be withdrawn by the learned Advocate, on instructions, and this was done in the presence of the Chief Officer. Thus, the order permitting withdrawal came to be passed by the Division Bench on 26.06.2019.

7. In the above background of the facts, the applicant has approached this Court, urging that she is getting in all the paltry sum for her salary of Rs.4,000/- and no other benefits are being made available to her, and therefore, this Court needs to consider, as to whether, there is a deliberate and willful act of contempt on the part of the respondent- Municipality or not.

7.1 We find that notice has been issued to Ms. Hiral Thaker or to her successor in office, as Chief Officer. Since, Ms. Thaker, has been transferred, one Mr. Bharatsinh Rathva is, now, discharging the duties as Chief Officer on contract basis,

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

after having retired from the post of Mamlatdar. Both Ms. Thaker, who was the then Chief Officer, and the present Chief Officer have filed their affidavits on 03.09.2020 and they have raised all the contentions from the scratch. By way of these contentions, the reference is made not only to the, initial, challenge jointly made by the present applicant along with others in the Reference No. 3 of 2003, where, the demand was made for grant of benefits of Higher Grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The said Reference was decided against the respondent-Municipality and it was directed to pay the Higher Grade on completion of 9. 18 and 27 years of service. The same was challenged by the respondent- Municipality vide Special Civil Application No. 24518 of 2012 before this Court. The said directions were since not complied with, the applicant and others approached this Court under contempt jurisdiction, by way of Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2014, where, vide order dated 04.03.2014, this Court found the Chief Officer guilty of the contempt of the Court and the then Chief Officer was imposed the penalty of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/- After the said contempt petition was disposed of, the benefits were extended to the applicant, but, her services came to be terminated.

She, therefore, preferred the Complaint (IT) No. 6 of 2014 in her Reference for regularization being Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012, where, the respondent-Municipality was directed to reinstate the applicant on the original post, with continuity of service, but, without back-wages.

Before the learned Single Judge, the contention was already raised of her initial appointment being contrary to law

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

and therefore, she not being entitled to the benefit of continuity on the original post. And, the sanction given by the State Government was, though, approved by the Local Fund Audit, the benefits of Higher Grade have been denied despite the earlier order in Contempt Jurisdiction and Municipality continued to pay her monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- on the ground that the respondent-Municipality has obliged her by reinstating her with continuity of service, without back-wages although in that regard another reference, being Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012 is filed, and is still pending, and therefore, it was urged earlier and now also in this application that she cannot claim any benefit pending the reference for regularization, this, in the opinion of this Court, is nothing, but, a deliberate and willful contempt.

7.2 This Court also notices that in the Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2016, the Court has already noted this stand on the part of the respondent-Municipality, whereby, it held in no uncertain terms that the only design that emerges is that Municipality wanted to get rid of the applicant, anyhow. It is also coming out from the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the Chief Officer that the conduct and attitude of the applicant of making complaints against the officers and employees of the respondent-Municipality was not approved by the Municipality and that is the sore point and although, there was no departmental inquiry conducted against her, her services came to be terminated, by setting aside the earlier resolution of 2005, in her absence and without availing her an opportunity of hearing.

The said action was, eventually, when challenged by way

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

of Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2016 and the Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 2016, the action of the respondent- Municipality has not been sustained.

7.3 It is simply unfathomable as to how the Municipality can choose to be so blatantly obstinate and arbitrary in its approach and continue to exhibit this trend of being above the law in its conduct despite the categorical directions in two rounds of litigations. Once when the applicant with the rest of the 34 employees eventually needed to approach this Court for getting the benefits of Higher Grade/Pay Scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services and the Division Bench having found the unacceptable and unsustainable approach of the then Chief Officer hold him guilty of contempt, this had not helped at all improvising the approach on the part of the Municipality in this regard.

It has chosen to terminate the service of the applicant without any opportunity of hearing or without initiating departmental proceedings and that second round also resulted in the Tribunal directing the Municipality to reinstate her without backwages but with continuity of service where the Tribunal has extensively noted inherent biases of the establishment while approaching the case of this applicant.

It is also questionable as to whether she, in fact, needed to go for regularization of her services in the Reference (IT) No. 17 of 2012 along with the request of benefits of 6 th Pay Commission. In absence of any details available of such Reference and so as not to go beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction, we do not dilate or dissect this aspect

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

further but, at the same time, are obliged to note that the depth with which this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2015 and in Letters Patent Appeal No. 5589 of 2016 has gone into while adjudicating the issues raised by the Municipality while challenging the order of the Tribunal in Complaint No. 6 of 2014, there is no scope for it to once again insist on agitating the very issues from scratch and question the very existence of post of Community Organizer.

What possible way an employee finds when the employer continues to nourish a serious, apparent bias against her/him and the only course available to it, if the employee is not to sit blaming the destiny, is to take a legal recourse and go on questioning such attitude. It is an individual vis-a-vis an institution, in it might and strength, resources and authority and an individual is a no match unless of course protected by the cloak of rule of law. Chief Officer after Chief Officer has been guided by the mindset of not accepting the decisions of the Courts till forced to do that legally. And, here also, it is without any justification.

7.4. It would be apt to refer to the definition of the civil contempt, which also concerns willful disobedience of any judgment or order of a Court or willful breach of any undertaking given to a Court.

Section 2(b) in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:-

"civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

7.5. What amounts to willful disobedience and non- compliance deserves reference at this stage, as held in the case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Others; reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 29, and in light of this ratio, it shall need to be regarded by this Court whether the conduct of the respondent-Municipality, more particularly, of the Chief Officer is an act of willful disobedience. Relevant findings and observations are reproduced as below: -

"74. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi21, taking a similar view:-

"30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the court may also resort to the provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in case of violation/breach of undertaking/judgment/order or decree. However, before passing any final order on such application, the court must satisfy itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree, direction or order and such disobedience is wilful and intentional. Though in a case of execution of a decree, the executing court may not be bothered whether the disobedience of the decree is wilful or not and the court is bound to execute a decree whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him. [See Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 332], Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [(2004) 1 SCC 360: AIR 2004 SC 942] and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang [(2006) 11 SCC 114 : AIR 2006 SC 1883].] Thus, for violation of a judgment or decree provisions of the criminal contempt are not attracted."

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

75. It will also be appropriate to refer to the further observations made by this Court in para (38) of the said judgment:-

"38. The contempt proceedings being quasi- criminal in nature, the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged 21(2012) 4 SCC 307contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B. [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 401] , this Court observed as under: (AIR p.

193, para 9) "9. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. ... Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."(emphasis added)" This Court has observed, that the contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in the other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally, to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The Court has also

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

referred to the observations made by this Court in the case of Debabrata Bandopadbyay and Others v. State of West Bengal and Another22, wherein it was observed, that punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority."

7.6. Contempt Jurisdiction as reiteratively held by the Courts is to uphold the majesty of the judicial system and not of any individuals. The Court cannot act in a manner where it gets swayed by its own conditionings, hypersensitivity or personal emotions but its approach needs to be cautious, wise and judicious.

In exceptional circumstances, this jurisdiction deserves to be invoked and in Civil Contempt, unless disobedience is willful and deliberate, it is not to take recourse to the same only because some infraction or breach comes to the fore.

Again, there shall need to be a clearcut obstruction of administration of justice and absence of any compelling circumstances which resulted in the order, judgment, writ or direction not being followed. Lapse being deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and defiance of authority as held in the decision referred to hereinabove, such contemptuous actions need firm and stern response.

7.7. In wake of this discussion, law when applied to the facts of instant case, the Chief Officer, contemnor - respondent no.1 has hold the charge from the year 2017 in Karamsad Municipality. She being the Chief Officer and administrator was responsible for all administrative actions,

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

including in case of the applicant employee. Being fully conscious of long drawn litigations and the orders of this Court earlier and subsequent also and various litigations still pending, to deny the benefits to the petitioner her rights granted by this Court and continue to pay sum of Rs. 4000/- monthly, despite the grant of benefits of Higher Pay/Grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services in earlier rounds and despite the order of continuity and reinstatement, is nothing but a contemptuous act.

7.8 Although, it is repetitively urged by both the Chief Officers, i.e. Ms. Thaker, the then Chief Officer, and Mr. Rathva, present Chief Officer, that they have had no intention to defy the Courts' authority and that they tender unconditional apology, if, they have committed any breach or disobedience of any judgment or order of this Court and their action is not willful, for the very obvious reasons as discussed above, this Court needs to hold that the action of the contemnor is deliberate and willful and in utter disregard of the Courts' orders. This Court also needs to hold, from the chronology of the events and they being aggrieved by the repeated applications made by the present applicant, as Community Organizer against the officers and employees of the respondent-Municipality, every attempt is made to ensure that either she is made to leave her post or she is discontinued from the post. Although, she had been made permanent, on the post of Community Organizer, which had also been a confirmed post and she was also granted the benefit of regular pay-scale, she has not only been denied the benefit of Higher Grade and instead, she is being paid the paltry amount of salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, which is in

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

clear disregard of the directions issued by this Court. If, she has been reinstated on the post of Community Organizer and she has been working, the respondent has not obliged her, instead the respondent-Municipality is legally obliged to reinstate her and provide her all the requisite benefits, as directed by this Court. Municipality headed by the Chief Officer has acted as if it has the right to agitate all the issues afresh in every litigation which again is its own creation. We could notice quite clearly that even in this application for contempt also, every issue decided either by various Judicial Authorities have been agitated tooth and nail by the Chief Officer in its reply and in the submissions and being fully conscious of its obligations, without any justifiable ground, in clear defiance and disregard of authority, deliberate breach is obvious and apparent.

7.9 From the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that it needs to invoke its jurisdiction, under the Contempt of Courts Act holding opponent no.1 guilty of civil contempt. She shall remain present before this Court on 31.07.2021.

(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J)

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

Further Order

7.10 After pronouncing the contemnor guilty of contempt of Court, we have heard her for punishment, when she appeared

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

before us in person through video conference.

7.11 Pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2021, an affidavit is also filed regarding compliance of the impugned order to purge the contempt, Mr. Akashkumar Kiranbhai Patel, the Chief Officer, Karamsad Nagarpalika, has stated thus, "I respectfully say and submit that, petitioner was reinstated with effect from 05.07.2019 on the post of Samaj Sangathak and she has been paid salary of Rs.4000/-. That when her services were terminated, her Gross salary was Rs.25,920/-(without Deduction). However, DA was increased from July 2019 from 100% to 164% and therefore gross salary was Rs. 33428/-. Therefore, difference of salary was calculated and after July 2020, Salary of Rs. 34442/- was calculated adding the increment and after deducting PF amount and other deduction, in all Rs. 6,19,476 has been paid to her by cheque No.299378 dated 26.07.2021. The amount will be deposited in her bank account. The Nagarpalika will deposit PF amount towards share of employee and share of Nagarpalika of Rs. 1,88,328 over and above aforesaid amount. I undertake to pay the Regular salary to her, subject to the outcome of SCA No.5223/2016 and 5224/2016 filed by the petitioner and also subject to the outcome of the main reference No. 17/2012, pending before the Industrial Tribunal. I undertake to abide by the directions that may be issued in the above proceedings also."

7.12 The respondent contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and submitted that she has purged the contempt by payment of salary with the dearness allowance and also by paying all other service benefits and further has assured to continue to pay subject to the outcome of Special Civil Application No.5223 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No.5224 of 2016 and also the main Reference No.17 of 2012.

8. For the discussion in all the forgoing paragraphs and the reasons given while holding the opponent No.1 Ms.Hiral

C/MCA/885/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2021

Thakker, the then Chief Officer, Karamsad Nagarpalika to be guilty of contempt of Court, we are of the view that the due course of justice has been substantially interfered with by the said contemnor and that she is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

9. In the totallity of the facts of the case, however, we restrict the punishment to the payment of fine. The opponent No.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- depositing the amount with the Registry of this Court and she shall further deposit cost of the proceedings which is quantified as Rs.20,000/-. The amount of fine and cost shall be deposited by contemnor as directed above within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Once the amount is deposited, the Registry shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the applicant- Employee by way of Account Payee cheque. The remaining amount shall be transmitted to the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee.

10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and to the extent.

(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J)

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Bhoomi