[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ravindra Nath & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.310 of 2025
------
Ravindra Nath & Others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
For the Resp. Nos.3 & 5 : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
-----
07/ 20.03.2026
Heard the parties.
2. This is an application to initiate a contempt proceeding against opposite
party Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the ground that they have deliberately and willfully
violated the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.(S) No.1874 of 2022.
3. Learned counsel representing the opposite party - State takes defense
of pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, which they have filed against the
order of the Writ Court, which is the subject matter of this Contempt
Application.
4. It is necessary to give the backgrounds of this case, which are follows:-
4.1. In this contempt application, the order which is violated / not complied
with, is order 13.06.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.1874 of 2022.
4.2. The learned Writ Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition,
at para-8 of the aforesaid order, concluded as hereunder:-
"8. In view of aforesaid observations, judicial pronouncements
and logical sequitur, I, hereby, direct the respondents to pay
pensionary benefits to the petitioners as per their entitlement
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/
production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that
petitioners are entitled for regular pension as per their
entitlement, every month. While extending the benefits, the
respondents will also consider for grant of benefits of 6th and 7th
Pay/ Pension revision with effect from 01.01.2006 and
01.01.2016 respectively and differences of amount, if any, also
be paid to them."
4.3. From the aforesaid order of the Writ Court, it is clear that twelve
weeks' time was granted to comply the order. The order / judgment was
delivered in the Court; thus, it was within the knowledge of the opposite parties.
4.4. As the order was not complied with, within the period mentioned
therein i.e. twelve weeks, the petitioner was forced to file the instant Contempt.
This Contempt Application was filed on 12.11.2024 and was registered on
24.02.2025.
4.5. After the defects were removed, this Contempt case was listed on
28.02.2025 before the Bench for consideration. On that date, learned counsel
representing the opposite party - State, appeared and requested for four weeks'
time for compliance of the Court's order. It is necessary to quote order dated
28.02.2025, which reads as hereunder:-
"04/28.02.2025 As prayed for, four weeks' time is allowed to the
counsel for the State/ opposite party to comply the Court's order."
4.6. The aforesaid order clearly suggests that the opposite parties prayed for
time to comply the order.
4.7. The order was not complied. Thereafter, on 12.12.2025 the opposite
party - State prayed for some time for filing affidavit to bring on record the
documents showing the amount, which has been already been paid to the
petitioners and the amounts which remains due, wherein three weeks' time as
prayed for, was granted. Again on 06.06.2026, on the request of learned counsel
for the State, this matter was adjourned for three weeks. In spite of that, the
order has not been complied with till today.
5. The State now takes recuse of the aforesaid pending Letters Patent
Appeal for non-compliance of the Writ Court's order.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Israr Ahmad Khan Vs.
Amarnath Prasad & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 322, at para-27,
28, 29 and 30, dealt with a Contempt Application vis. a vis. belated / delayed
Appeals to delay / defeat implementation of the orders. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the High Court should deal with such unscrupulous litigants,
more so when those litigants are State, with iron hands. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has further held that delayed filing of appeals is an exception but in recent
times the said exceptions have become the Rule. It has also been observed that
when orders passed by the Courts are not complied with for long time and when
Contempt Petitions are filed, belated Appeals with tremendous delay are
preferred - exactly the case which this Court is dealing with now. Further the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that these type of conducts of the defaulting
party sought to be justified on mere production of a stamp reporting number,
showing that the appeal has already been preferred so as to obtain multiple
adjournments in the contempt petitions. This is exactly the scenario here, as this
contempt petition has been adjourned many a times. It is necessary to quote
para-27, 28, 29 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
which reads as hereunder:-
"27. Delayed filing of appeals should be the exception, but in
recent times, the exception has practically evolved to become the
rule. Orders passed by the Courts are not complied with for a long
time, and when Contempt Petitions are filed, belated appeals, with
tremendous delay, are preferred.
28. The (alleged) continuing contumacious conduct of the
defaulting party is sought to be justified on the mere production of
a Diary/Filing/Stamp Reporting Number showing that an appeal
has been preferred, so as to obtain multiple adjournments in
contempt matters.
29. We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these practices. It is felt
that by such modus operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly
which has the further effect of bringing down the authority and
majesty of the Courts and the rule of law, interfering in the
administration of justice. The same may well, in certain situations,
border on criminal contempt.
30. The High Courts should deal with such unscrupulous litigants,
moreso when they happen to be 'State', within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, or like bodies, with an iron hand.
Unless the High Courts, so also this Court deal with these aspects
firmly, we run the clear risk of erosion of the unflinching faith that
the ordinary litigants of this country repose in the Judiciary at all
levels. It is the solemn duty of all of us manning the Courts across
the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers."
7. As noted earlier at para-30 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, not only held that that High Court should deal with these types
of matters with iron hand but also held that unless the High Court deals with
these aspects firmly, there will be risk of erosion of unflinching faith in the
ordinary litigants of the Country, reposed in the judiciary at all levels.
8. Considering what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
facts of this case, since the aforesaid order has not yet been complied with, let
Notice of Contempt under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, be
issued to the contemnors / opposite party No.2 - Sunil Kumar, presently holding
the post of the Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Opposite Party No.3 - Shri Jogendra Prasad,
presently holding the post of the Executive Officer, Hazaribagh, Government
of Jharkhand, Opposite party No.4 - Ms. Nancy Sahay, presently holding the
post of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Government of Jharkhand,
opposite party No.5-Shri Manish Kumar, presently holding the post of the
Executive Officer, Ramgarh, Nagar Parishad, Government of Jharkhand and the
opposite party No.6 - Shri Chandan Kumar, presently holding the post of the
Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, Government of Jharkhand, to give a reply as
to why not the contempt proceeding be initiated and charge be framed against
them for willfully violating the order dated 13.06.2024 passed in W.P.(S)
No.1874 of 2024, in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them. The
contemnors / opposite party Nos.2 to 6 will remain physically present before
this Court on the next date.
9. The office will issue notice under Form-1 annexing a copy of the
petition along with the Annexures.
10. List this case after three weeks.
11. In the meantime, the salary of contemnors / opposite party Nos.3 to 6,
will not be disbursed to them and will be kept on hold, till further order of this
Court. Be it also noted that these contemnors / opposite parties i.e. O.P. Nos.3
to 6 will not withdraw their salary without the leave of this Court.
12. It is made clear that if the order is not complied with by the next date,
the salary of opposite party No.2- Sunil Kumar, Secretary/ Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department, Ranchi, Government of Jharkhand, will also
be withheld.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Accountant General (A
& E), Government of Jharkhand, the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Finance Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, and the Treasury, Government of Jharkhand, for
ensuring strict compliance of this order.
13.1. Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the above-named
contemnors / opposite party Nos.2 to 6.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
20th March, 2026
Madhav. Cp-2
