Gujarat High Court
Maganbhai Jethabhai Vankar vs Mukesh Puri And His Successor , ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1121/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1121 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19014 of 2017
=============================================
MAGANBHAI JETHABHAI VANKAR
Versus
MUKESH PURI AND HIS SUCCESSOR , ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
=============================================
Appearance:
MR GUNVANT R THAKAR(3801) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS BHARGAVI G THAKAR(5015) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 18/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the present application, the applicants are seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings for willful and deliberate
disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment and order dated 28.11.2022 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 19014 of 2017.
2. The directions are issued in the paragraph No.6.8 of the
aforesaid order. The same are incorporated as under : -
"6.8 Accordingly, in view of the above
discussion, the respondents are directed to
pay the benefit of second higher pay scale to
tall the petitioners upon completion of their
15 years service after getting first higher
pay scale on completion of 9 years of service.
Such benefits are required to be calculated
and given to the petitioners within a period
of 12 weeks from today any period beyond 12
weeks in granting the above benefit shall
incur interest @6% p.a."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1121/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted
that the respondent authorities have already calculated the
aforesaid amount along with interest and have deposited the
amount in the bank accounts of the applicants. A photocopy of
the details of said cheques is forwarded to this Court. The
same is ordered to be taken on record.
4. At this stage, Learned advocate Mr.Thakar, appearing fro
the applicants has submitted that in fact, the applicants are
not paid the amount of public holidays and home-town benefits
and the group insurance scheme, which were required to be
revised.
5. A bare perusal of the afore-noted directions would reveal
that the learned Single Judge has not issued any direction in
this regard.
6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand, [(2004) 7 SCC
261], the Supreme Court has observed thus : -
"8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by
the order which in its opinion is wrong or
against rules or its implementation is neither
practicable nor feasible, it should always
either approach to the Court that passed the
order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate
Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order
cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right
or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting
an order of the Court would render the party
liable for contempt. While dealing with an
application for contempt the Court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of
which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1121/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
what should not have been done or what should
have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the
order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise
of the order or give additional direction or
delete any direction. That would be exercising
review jurisdiction while dealing with an
application for initiation of contempt
proceedings. The same would be impermissible
and indefensible. In that view of the matter,
the order of the High Court is set aside and
the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.
It shall deal with the application in its
proper perspective in accordance with law
afresh. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion regarding acceptability
or otherwise of the application for initiation
of contempt proceedings."
7. The Supreme Court has held that if any party concerned
is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or
against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor
feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction. Rightness or wrongness
of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings and the
Court while examining the proceedings under the Contempt of
Courts Act, cannot transgress the direction issued in the order.
8. Similarly, in the case of V. Senthur and another Vs. M.
Vijaykumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and another, [2021-SCALE-11-566], the
Supreme Court has held thus:-
"14. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction,
the court will not travel beyond the original
judgment and direction; neither would it be
permissible for the court to issue any
supplementary or incidental directions, which
are not to be found in the original judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1121/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
and order. The court is only concerned with
the willful or deliberate noncompliance of the
directions issued in the original judgment and
order.
9. Thus, it is held that there can be no quarrel with the
proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the Court will not
travel beyond the original judgment and direction, neither
would it be permissible for the Court to issue any
supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be
found in the original judgment and order. The Court is only
concerned with the willful or deliberate non - compliance of the
directions issued in the original judgment and order.
10. Hence, in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court,
this Court cannot delve into the issue with regard to not paying
the amount of public holidays and home-town benefits and the
group insurance scheme, which were required to be revised as
there are no directions issued by the learned Single Judge in
this regard. Thus, in view of the aforesaid order, we do not see
any deliberate or willful disobedience of the directions issued
by this Court, hence, the present contempt petition is rejected.
Accordingly, the contempt proceedings stands closed.
11. If any grievance survives, as mentioned hereinabove, it
will be open for the applicants to file appropriate application
before appropriate Forum.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
MAHESH/02
