Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar vs Farid Ahmed
2023 Latest Caselaw 1705 MP

                                                       :1:

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT I N D O R E
                                                BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

                           ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2023

               CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1080 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
MRS. DURGESH KUWAR W/O SHRI RAKESH
MAMODIA,   AGED   ABOUT      43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE B/505, BCM HEIGHTS
OP. BOMBAY HOSPITAL VIJAY NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
(PETITIONER PRESENT IN PERSON)

AND
1. FARID AHMED OCCUPATION: EXECUTIVE
   DIRECTOR PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK 21,
   RAJENDRA PALACE NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. H. HARISHANKAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR
   PUNJAB AND SIND BANK 21 RAJENDRA
   PALACE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. JAYANT   KUMAR     NAYAK,   GENERAL
   MANAGER (HRD) PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
   21 RAJENDRA PALACE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
4. VINAY KUMAR MEHROTRA, REGIONAL
   MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
   NAYAPURA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI DEVAASHEESH DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS )
...................................................................................................................
                                   :2:

      This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the

following:

                               ORDER

1] This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner-Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar, who is present in person, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10/12/15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

2] The petition is filed for non-compliance of the interim order dated 23.4.2018 passed by this Court in a disposed of Writ Petition No.9048/2018 whereby, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court had also stayed the operation of order dated 05.12.2017, passed by the respondents. Vide order dated 05.12.2017, the petitioner was transferred from Indore to Sarsawan, District-Jabalpur. The writ petition was disposed of on 11.2.2019.

3] The case of the petitioner is that, despite the stay order dated 23.4.2018 was in operation, the respondents did not allow her to work in the Bank and also did not offer her a seat to sit in the Bank, which, according to the petitioner, was an act in defiance of the order passed by this court on 05.12.2017.

4] The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the aforesaid Writ Petition was finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.2.2019, which was also challenged by the

respondent/Bank in Writ Appeal No.377/2019 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2019 and the order said passed by the division bench was again challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme in C.A. No.1809/2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11985 of 2019), but it was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 25.2.2020, and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue up to one year at Indore. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner also gave her joining back to the respondent/Bank on 11.03.2020.

5] The petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to para 25 & 26 of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court wherein, even the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been harassed for a period of four years. Thus, it is submitted that, a clear case of contempt is made out; specially when no reply has been filed by the respondents.

6] The petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 9048/2018 wherein also, she had raised her grievance that she is not being allowed to work and is not even offered a seat to sit in the Bank which has caused her extreme mental agony and had to suffer humiliation, which has also impeded her promotion since 2019.

7] The petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 25.11.2019, passed by this Court in W.P. No.20489/2019 which was filed by the

respondents, wherein the attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that she is not being offered a proper seat in the Bank. Thus, it is submitted by the petitioner that a clear case of contempt is made out against the respondents and they should be punished for the same.

8] On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for contempt is made out, as the matter has travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the Punjab and Sindh Bank, and the respondents have also complied with the order passed by the Supreme Court and after the order was passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner has also worked in the same branch of the Bank for a period of one year and, thus, no case for contempt is made out.

9] Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to para 26 of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.1809/2020 wherein, the respondents have also been given liberty to transfer the petitioner after expiry of the period of one year and there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any order passed by this Court has been disobeyed.

10] Heard the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

11] So far the interim order dated 23.4.2018, passed in W.P.No. 9048/2018 is concerned, the contempt of which is alleged, the same

reads as under:-

"The main grievance of the petitioner is that on 2.9.2016 she has been promoted from Senior Manager (MMGS- Class III) to the post of Chief Manager (SMGS-IV) and, therefore, she cannot be posted at Branch Saraswan, District- Jablapur as In-charge of the aforesaid branch because the Scale One officer is required to be posted.

Considering the aforesaid, let show cause notice be issued to respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within six weeks, failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed without any reference to the Court.

In the meanwhile, operation of order dated 5.12.2017 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."

(emphasis supplied)

12] The aforesaid petition was finally allowed by this Court on 11.02.2019. However, there was no separate observations made by this Court pertaining to the earlier interim order of stay dated 23.04.2018, which, is in the considered opinion of this Court has merged into the final order and cannot be enforced separately. It is also found that the final order passed by this Court in W.P. 9048/2018 dated 11.02.2019 was also challenged by the Punjab and Sind Bank before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.377/2019 which was also dismissed by the Court vide order 18.3.2019, but, in the aforesaid appeal also, this Court has not passed any order in respect of the interim order dated 23.4.2018. The order passed in the

Writ Appeal was again challenged by the Punjab and Sind Bank before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, who, while dismissing the petition filed by the Bank has made the following observations:-

"25. In view of the above analysis, we are of the view that the High Court cannot be faulted in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of the respondent, who was holding the office of Chief Manager in the Scale IV in Indore Branch at Sarsawa in the district of Jabalpur was required to be interfered with. At the same time, a period of nearly four years has since elapsed. Despite the order of stay, the respondent was not assigned an office at Indore and had to suffer the dignity of being asked to sit away from the place assigned to a Branch Manager. Considering the period which has elapsed, it would be necessary for the Court to issue a direction, which, while sub-serving the interest of the bank, is also consistent with the need to preserve the dignity of a woman employee who, we hold, has been unfairly treated.

"26.We accordingly, direct that Ms. Durgesh Kuwar, the respondent officer, shall be reposted at the Indore Branch as a Scale IV officer for a period of one year from today. Upon the expiry of the period of one year, if any administrative exigency arises the competent authority of the bank would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in regard to her place of posting independently in accordance with law keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations of the bank, in the interest of fair treatment to the

officer.

27. While affirming the decision of the High Court, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions. The respondent would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid over within one month"

(emphasis supplied)

13] A bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reveals that the Supreme Court has already taken care of the petitioner's predicament and has dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- In such circumstances, when the interim order dated 23.4.2018 has already been merged into the final order dated 11.02.2019, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.377/2019 and also scrutinized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, and no liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue the contempt petition separately against the order dated 23.4.2018, it is not a case where the contempt of this Court can be said to be made out..

14] In view of the same, the contempt petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

( SUBHODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE

moni

MONI Digitally signed by MONI RAJU DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6fb601f03d4083a3289219d85392bac3bde1be8a53 bd80aeba7af5a5244844c1,

RAJU pseudonym=85E21E23646B47526A49E99D9182D0AE8ABD6 2D1, serialNumber=3BFD07BEC0C790E4AEA8CB122D629549D106 7813B2AE8FB016F1BF08EE881126, cn=MONI RAJU Date: 2023.02.07 18:30:09 +05'30'