Rajasthan High Court

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Nanag Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 28 January, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 172/2019

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Nanag Ram Meena, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Purana Roopwas Rajgarh Road Alwar (Raj)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State    Of     Rajasthan          Through          Principal   Secretary
       Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Jaipur
       Government Secretariat Jaipur
2.     Akhil Arora Principal Secretary Department Of Social
       Justice And Empowerment, Jaipur Govt. Secretariat Jaipur
3.     Suchi   Sharma         Commissioner/director              Department    Of
       Social Justice And Empowerment, Jaipur Govt. Of Raj.
       Ambedkar Bhawan Near Civil Lines Phatak Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

28/01/2022

The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition, alleging

non-compliance/disobedience of order dated 16.11.2018 passed

by this Court whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11284/2011 filed

by petitioner was allowed and the termination order of petitioner

dated 23.02.2011 was set aside with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is

entitled for reinstatement in service as well as for payment of all

back wages, apart from other consequential benefits of revised

pay scale, seniority etc. Learned counsel submits that although,

(2 of 6) [CCP-172/2019]

during pendency of this contempt petition, respondents have

partially complied with order dated 16.11.2018 by taking the

petitioner back in service w.e.f. 12.02.2019 but the back wages

the actual monetary benefits for the period prior to his

reinstatement have not been paid, therefore, order dated

16.11.2018 has not complied with in letter and spirit. Thus,

respondents are guilty of deliberate and willful non-compliance of

order dated 16.11.2018 and therefore be punished for contempt

of Court.

Respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition

contending therein that the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by this

Court has been complied as a whole. Respondents have issued

order dated 12.02.2019 to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f.

12.02.2019 and to pay all consequential benefits. It has further

been submitted that services of petitioner were suspended on

06.11.1996 and thereafter he was terminated on 23.02.2011 and

has been reinstated in service w.e.f. 12.02.2019, therefore for the

interregnum period i.e. from 06.11.1996 to 11.02.2019, petitioner

has not rendered services as such for this period petitioner is

entitled for notional monetary benefits, in stead of the actual

monetary benefits/back wages and all notional benefits have been

accorded. The order dated 12.02.2019 has been amended vide

subsequent order dated 24.02.2020 to clarify the consequential

benefits accorded to petitioner notionally. Thus, according to

respondents, no non-compliance of the order dated 16.11.2018

remain due and the contempt petition does not survive.

It appears from record that respondents issued order dated

12.02.2019 allowing reinstatement of petitioner in service with

(3 of 6) [CCP-172/2019]

consequential benefits and respondents paid an amount

Rs.12,28,351/- in the bank account of petitioner for the period of

October, 2017 to February, 2019 but later on, when order dated

12.02.2019 was amended, vide amended order dated 24.02.2020,

respondents have issued a letter dated 20.03.2020 to petitioner to

refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,28,351/-.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the term "all

consequential benefits" should be construed for making payment

of back wages/actual monetary benefits whereas respondents

have paid only notional benefits. Reliance has been placed upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali

Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya

(D.ED.) and Ors. Reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 Para 38.5.

The counsel for petitioner further submits that at one point

of time, when the respondents passed order dated 12.02.2019

allowing reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential

benefits, the respondents by their own released payment of Rs.

12,28,351/- in the bank account of petitioner but later on,

maliciously have amended the order dated 12.02.2019 by

subsequent order dated 24.02.2020 and now inclined to recover

back the said paid amount of Rs.12,28,351/- from the petitioner.

Therefore, such conduct of respondents be treated as

contumacious and malicious which is tantamounts to committing

contempt of Court as also non-compliance of order darted

16.11.2018.

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

material available on record.

(4 of 6) [CCP-172/2019]

A perusal of order dated 16.11.2018 goes to show that the

termination order of petitioner was set aside with all consequential

benefits.

It is not in dispute that in compliance thereof petitioner has

been reinstated in service w.e.f. 12.02.2019 and has been granted

benefits of revision in pay scale, seniority etc. It is not in dispute

that the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 06.11.1996 and

thereafter was terminated on 23.02.2011 and has been reinstated

in service w.e.f. 12.02.2019, therefore as far as claim of petitioner

for back wages/ actual monetary benefits for the interregnum

period from 06.11.1996 to 11.02.2019 is concerned, no specific

adjudication has been made in the order dated 16.11.2018. For

this period, respondents have paid notional benefits, whereas

petitioner claims actual monetary benefits. In absence of any

specific order for making payment of actual monetary benefits, the

conduct of respondents to pay notional benefits may not be

treated as non-compliance of the aforesaid order. However,

petitioner was/is always free to make a claim for actual monetary

benefits by way of other appropriate proceedings known to law but

such claim of actual monetary benefits cannot be adjudicated in

the proceedings of contempt.

It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations

are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt

proceeding would not be maintainable. Reference of the Judgment

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Kishan Vs.

Tarun Bajaj reported in (2014) 16 SCC 204 may be given to

substantiate the principle of law.

(5 of 6) [CCP-172/2019]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Anil Ratan

Sarkar Vs. Hirak Ghosh reported in [(2002) 4 SCC 21] has

opined that the powers under the Contempt of Court Act should be

exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather

sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper

administration of the justice delivery system in the country.

In para No.15 of the aforesaid judgment following

observations have been made:-

"15.It may also be noticed at this juncture that

mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient

to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning

of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 the element of

willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring

home the charge within the meaning of the Act and

lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible

and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to

one such interpretation the act or acts cannot be

ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A

doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the

conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt

petition would not arise. "