Gujarat High Court
Jagdishkumar Kunvarshibhai Desai vs Jenu Devan, Inspector General Of ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/516/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 516 of
2025
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 781 of 2020
=============================================
JAGDISHKUMAR KUNVARSHIBHAI DESAI
Versus
JENU DEVAN, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
=============================================
Appearance:
JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application has been filed under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating of the contempt
proceedings against the respondent for defiance of the order
dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in the
captioned writ petition.
2. Today, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
tendered the approval order dated 02.05.2025 granting the
consequential benefits and payment of Rs.21,52,789/- to the
applicant. The same refers to the pay fixation done as well as
the grant of benefits of continue of service also.
3. The respondents have also conferred seniority to the
applicant and is placed at serial No.241. Another order dated
21.04.2025 is also tendered by the learned Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/516/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Government Pleader. Both the orders are ordered to be taken
on record.
4. However, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has submitted
that the applicant is not granted the benefit of Higher Pay
Scale and promotion. He has further submitted that the Higher
Pay Scale is granted on completion of 10 years of service and
promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-I, Class-II.
5. At this stage, we may incorporate the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, which are
incorporated in paragraph No.10 of the order dated
02.09.2020 :-
"10.As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order
of termination dated 18.09.2018 and the order in appeal
dated 23.03.2020 are quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have been
reinstated on the original post of sub-registrar (Grade-II) with
continuity of service and with salary/wages to be paid for the
interregnum, as well as with consequential benefits as if the
order of termination dated 18.09.2018 was never passed.
Reinstatement of the petitioner directed as above, shall be
upto 17.12.2018 so as to make up the total period of
employment of five years as per the conditions of the
appointment. Resultant monetary benefits arising by virtue of
the present order shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present
order. "
6. The learned Single Judge has only directed to confer the
benefits of continuing of service and also reinstated him on the
post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-I, Class-II, with consequential
benefits as if the order of termination dated 18.09.2018 was
never passed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/516/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
7. Today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
tendered the orders conferring all the benefits referred to
hereinabove upon the applicant. However, the said orders do
not make any reference to the benefit of promotion or the
grant of Higher Pay Scale.
8. In our considered opinion, for claiming benefits from a
particular date as well as the deemed date of promotion, the
applicant is required to initiate separate proceedings. Such
claims cannot be encompassed within the directions issued in
paragraph No.10 under the head of "consequential benefits"
alone, as both benefits are substantial in nature and must be
specifically claimed and established by proving entitlement.
9. At this stage, we may refer to the law enunciated by the
Supreme Court 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 and order. The court is
only concerned with the willful or deliberate
noncompliance of the directions issued in the
original judgment and order.
10. Thus, it is held by the Supreme Court that there can be
no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/516/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
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 and it is also
cautioned that the court is only concerned with the willful or
deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued in the
original judgment and order. The contempt proceedings stand
closed.
11. The present application is accordingly rejected. However,
it shall be open to the applicant to initiate appropriate
proceedings before the competent forum for claiming the
aforesaid two benefits.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MAHESH/03
