Gujarat High Court
Mohbatsinh Balusinh Zala vs Mukesh Puri, Ias, Additional Chief ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/865/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 865 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 868 of 2023
==========================================================
MOHBATSINH BALUSINH ZALA & ORS.
Versus
MUKESH PURI, IAS, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH J DAVE(10620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. On 25.04.2024, this Court passed the following order:
1. Mr Aakash Gupta, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondents states that the order, of which breach
was alleged, has been complied with. It is submitted that the
amount towards leave encashment; pension and group
insurance have been paid.
2. Mr Rahul Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants requests for time to take instructions.
3. List the matter on 02.05.2024 in the separate board.
2. Today, learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma appearing
for the applicants has submitted that in fact, though the
applicant has received all the benefits, as mentioned in the
order dated 25.04.2024, the photograph of his spouse for
claiming family pension is not annexed by the respondent
authorities and the one increment while fixing the pension is
also not granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/865/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
3. The present application is filed seeking action under the
contempt of Courts Act for defiance of the directions issued by
this Court in the order dated 25.07.2023 more particularly,
paragraph No.6. The same is as under:
"6. The order of compulsory retirement was liable to be set
aside and the petitioners were directed to be treated to have
served till their age of superannuation to accord them all the
terminal benefits."
4. Thus, since the respondents have already extended the
benefits and the grievance with regard to pasting of
photograph of the spouse and one increment still remains, we
cannot delve into such issue, in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of V. Senthur Vs. M.Vijayakumar, 2021
(11) Scale 566, wherein the Supreme Court has clarified that
while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot
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.
5. Hence, in case, the applicant is aggrieved, it will be open
for him to file appropriate application before appropriate
forum.
6. In view of the above observations, the present
application stands disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj /52
