Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Harendra Nath Mishra vs Dr. Manoj Govil on 18 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26312
1 CONC-2712-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 2712 of 2019
DR. HARENDRA NATH MISHRA
Versus
DR. MANOJ GOVIL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Advocate for respondents No.3 & 7.
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed against the action of the respondents in
deliberately and willfully flouting the order dated 05/03/2019 passed in W.P.
No.15773/2017, whereby the Writ Petition was allowed with the direction as
under:-
"Thus, I deem it proper to set aside the
order dated 11.05.2017 and direct the
respondents to implement the order dated
29.12.2010 with all consequential benefits to
the petitioner within 90 days from the date of
production of copy of this order, failing
which it will carry 12% interest till the date
of actual payment."
2. On notice being issued, an Action Taken Report has been filed by the
respondents in the matter. It is pointed out that against the order passed in
W.P. No.15773/2017, a Writ Appeal No.34/2021 was filed which was
disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19/12/2022
observing as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26312
2 CONC-2712-2019
"Both the learned counsels submit that the
dispute herein is covered by the judgment
dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Medical
Officer Association vs. State of M.P. and
others (Civil Appeal No.5527 of 2022) and
connected matters.
In view of the request made, the appeal is
disposed off in terms of the aforesaid
judgment."
3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in
the order dated 26/08/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
o f M.P. Medical Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. and others (Civil
Appeal No.5527 of 2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed as
under:-
"In result, there shall not be any recovery
of the excess amount paid pursuant to the
circular dated 23.05.2009 till the same was
withdrawn on 30.05.2012. However, for all
other purposes including the pay fixation and
pension etc., the same shall be now worked
out as per the order dated 26.08.2008, as if,
the circular dated 23.05.2009 was never
issued."
4. It is further pointed out that in pursuance to the said direction given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they have constituted a DPC and calculated the
amount to be paid to the petitioner in terms of circular dated 26/08/2008 and
have extended the benefits to the petitioner. It is argued that there is no
willful disobedience on the part of the Authorities in not complying the
orders passed by the Court as with the consent of the petitioner himself, the
order passed in the Writ Petition was modified by the Division Bench as
pointed out hereinabove. It is argued that once the order has been modified
and the said modified order has been complied with by the Authorities
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26312
3 CONC-2712-2019
rightly or wrongly, then it cannot be a willful disobedience on the part of the
Authorities. Therefore, no contempt is made out. He has prayed for dismissal
of the Contempt Petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order
passed in Writ Petition was to extend the benefit in pursuance to the order
dated 29/12/2010. The order dated 29/12/2010 was never put to challenge
anywhere. It is further argued that in pursuance to the said order, the actual
benefits have already been extended to other similarly situated employees.
The order is still holding the field, however the actual benefits in pursuance
to said order have never been extended to the petitioner. Therefore, there is a
willful and deliberate disobedience.
6. The fact remains that the petitioner himself has given his consent
before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.34/2021 for its disposal in
terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.
Medical Officers Association (supra). Once the petitioner himself has given
his consent to dispose of the Writ Appeal in terms of order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has categorically directed for granting the benefits in terms of circular dated
26/08/2008 and the fact that the Authorities have organized a DPC and
extended the benefit to the petitioner in terms of circular dated 26/08/2008,
then there is no willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the
Authorities. However, the claim of the petitioner is with respect to extension
of benefits since from the year 1996 as mentioned in order dated 29/12/2010.
The fact remains that the Authorities have already extended the benefits to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26312
4 CONC-2712-2019
the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. The date of extension of said
benefits may be right or wrong The same does not constitute a contempt as
there is no willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the Authorities.
7. While dealing with the Contempt proceedings, this Court has limited
jurisdiction and cannot go beyond the directions given by the Division Bench
of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case.
Petitioner is trying to enlarge the scope of Contempt Petition and asking for
compliance of order dated 05/03/2019 passed in W.P. No.15773/2017 which
has already stood modified on the consent given by the petitioner himself.
8. Under these circumstances, respondents cannot be held liable for
deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner
is always at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Authorities regarding
extension of benefits from a particular date in appropriate proceedings. The
time period consumed by the petitioner in litigation including this Contempt
Petition will not be a rider to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings for
his legitimate claim from a particular date.
10. With aforesaid observations, this Contempt Petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
