Gujarat High Court
Rajubhai Vishnuprasad Gondaliya vs P. B. Pandya Amreli District Panchayat on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/913/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 913 of
2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/13808/2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CLARIFICATION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 913 of 2025
=============================================
RAJUBHAI VISHNUPRASAD GONDALIYA
Versus
P. B. PANDYA AMRELI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MS VAISHNAVI VERM, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Misc. Civil Application has been filed by the
applicant seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings
for willful and deliberate breach of the directions issued by this
Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2024 passed in the
captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13808
of 2018.
2. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to
consider the case of the applicant-original petitioner for grant
of benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 in light of the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in
Special Civil Application No.14198 of 2020, in the case of
another employee, and thereafter grant all the consequential
benefits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/913/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present
application, the applicant is paid an amount of Rs.10,54,902/-,
and a copy of the receipt dated 27.06.2025 is taken on record.
However, it appears that since there is a discrepancy in his
name, the pension papers are not prepared, and accordingly,
he has filed the captioned civil application seeking a change in
name.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakker has drawn the attention of
this Court to various inter se communications between the
applicant and the respondents, as well as the School Leaving
Certificate and the affidavit filed by the applicant that "Raju
Vishnuprasad Gondalia" and "Rajendrakumar Vishnudas
Gondalia" are one and the same person.
5. Ultimately, the respondent-authority, after inter se
communication, have stated that the correction of the name in
the service record of the applicant is required to be effected
through the Gazette. The communication dated 06.08.2025
reads as under: -
"No.: RO/1/Naam Sudharo/Gazette/Vashi 08/2025
Health Department
Jafrabad Extreme Urgent
Date: 06.08.2025
To,
Shri R.V. Gondaliya,
Retd., Daily Wage Earner
Primary Health Center
C/o. Subhamnagar, Hindorana Road,
Rajula.
Subject: Regarding obtaining a Gazette for name correction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/913/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Ref: Letter dated 17/08/2025 from the office of the Hon. Accounts
Officer, Director of Accounts and Treasury, Gandhinagar.
Jai Bharat! In reference to the above subject and context, it is
to inform that your service book was sent to Gandhinagar for salary
verification of ROP-98. Wherein, if there is a need to correct the
name upon sending it to the Pension and Provident Fund
department, and if there are instructions from the Head Office to
take immediate action in a court case, then it is requested to correct
the name through an immediate Gazette and submit the Gazette
document related to the same. The letter regarding this completion
is enclosed.
Sd/-
(Signature of Taluka Health Officer, Jafrabad)
Copy respectfully forwarded to:
(1) Hon. Chief District Health Officer, Health Branch, District
Panchayat Office, Amreli, for information.."
6. Thus, in the present application filed by the original
petitioner-applicant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
the applicant seeks initiation of contempt proceedings as well
as a direction for correction of his name in the service records.
At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others,
(2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/913/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
In other words, it cannot say 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. Thus, while examining the present proceedings, we
cannot traverse beyond the order of which compliance is
sought. No additional directions for correction in name can be
issued by us. Hence, in order to get the name corrected in
service record, the applicant has to follow the necessary
procedure as envisaged under the law.
8. Since, the applicant is already paid the consequential
amount, and the learned Single Judge had only directed to
consider his case, we close the contempt proceedings.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Civil Application stands
disposed of. The Civil application also stands rejected. It will
open for the applicant to file appropriate proceedings for
getting his name changed in service record.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MAHESH/16
