Rajasthan High Court
Hussain Khan vs Shri Rajiv Gauba on 5 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 913/2013
Hussain Khan S/o Shri Paras Khan, Aged About 70 Years, Ex
Group Centre-Ii, C.r.P.F. R/o Village Bawari, Po Molasar Distt
Nagaur Now R/o Vpo Nuwa, Tehsil Didwana, Distt Nagaur Raj
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Rajiv Rai Bhatnagar, The Director General C.r.p.f. Cgo
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
2. Shri Rajiv Rai Bhatnagar, The Director General C.R.P.F.
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. The DIG, Group Centre II, C.R.P.F., Ajmer (Raj.)
---Contemnors/Respondents
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. R.S. Bhadauria through V.C.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Anand Sharma through V.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
05/01/2022
This contempt petition has been filed, alleging non-
compliance and disobedience of the final judgment and order
dated 24.05.2004 whereunder the writ petition filed by the
petitioner was allowed and the respondents were directed to
accord the pension and other consequential benefits to the
petitioner after counting the period of military service of the
petitioner.
It reveals from the record that the order dated 24.05.2004
was put to challenge by the respondents by way of filing D.B. Civil
Special (Writ) No.593/2004 and which was decided vide order
dated 21.02.2012. In the appeal, it was argued on behalf of the
respondents that if the services rendered by the petitioner in
(2 of 4) [CCP-913/2013]
military are counted for grant of pensionary benefits, the
petitioner is required to deposit the benefits received by him.
In counter to such argument, the petitioner has expressed
his willingness to re-deposit the amount. Though, in the order of
Division Bench, there is no specification about the quantum of
amount which was required to be deposited by the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner, by way of this contempt
petition has alleged that the respondents have passed order dated
10.04.2013 whereunder on the gratuity amount of Rs.1567/-
received by the petitioner, interest has been calculated and
respondents have asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of
Rs.35,743/- in order to grant the pensionary benefits pursuant to
the order dated 24.05.2004. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that although he is ready to re-deposit the principal
amount of gratuity i.e. Rs.1567/- but the calculation of interest
thereupon is an arbitrary act of respondents which is wholly illegal
and violative to the rules. As per the rules, respondents were
under a duty to recover the gratuity installments and once they
have failed in performing their duty, for their default, the
respondents can not claim the interest from the petitioner. The
counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents,
calculating the interest upon the principal amount of gratuity and
issuing order dated 10.04.2013, asking the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.35,743/- in order to comply with the direction of
learned Single Judge is contemptuous and the respondents may
be held liable for committing the willful and deliberate
disobedience and non-compliance of the order of learned Single
Judge dated 24.05.2004, which has been affirmed by the Division
Bench vide judgment dated 21.02.2012 and be suitably punished.
The respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition
and contended that there is no deliberate and willful non-
compliance of the order dated 24.05.2004 on their part, rather in
compliance of the order, they have issued a letter dated
10.04.2013 to grant the pensionary benefits to the petitioner
subject to fulfilling the demand of deposition of the gratuity
amount with interest amounting Rs.35,743/-. The counsel for
respondents submits that the Government of India has taken a
(3 of 4) [CCP-913/2013]
decision allowing to charge interest upon the refund of pensionary
benefits as well. The counsel for respondents has referred to Rule
19 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972) and
has also drawn attention to the Government of India's decision,
according to which interest is liable to be paid at the rate
applicable to GPF deposits. Thus, the counsel for respondents
submits that respondents have calculated the interest on the
principal amount of gratuity at the rate applicable to GPF deposits.
The calculation of interest is well within their rights, which can not
be treated arbitrary nor can be treated as non-compliance of
order of learned Single Judge dated 24.05.2004.
Heard counsel for both the parties.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has expressed his
willingness before the Division Bench to re-deposit the amount
demanded by the respondents to avail the pensionary benefits in
compliance of the order dated 24.05.2004. This admission of
petitioner clearly reveals from perusal of the order dated
21.02.2012 passed in Special (Writ) No.593/2004. Thus, the
respondents are well within their rights to demand the principal
amount of gratuity from the petitioner in order to grant the
pensionary benefits in compliance of the order dated 24.05.2004.
If the respondents have calculated the interest on the principal
amount of gratuity, which is being questioned by the petitioner,
the same may not be treated as disobedience or non-compliance
of the order and such dispute cannot be adjudicated in contempt
jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculation of
interest on the principal amount of gratuity and against the
demand raised by the respondents, he is free to avail the
appropriate remedy in law by way of separate proceedings by
assailing the order of demand dated 10.04.2013. As far as
contempt proceedings are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Ghosh [2002] (4) SCC
21 has clearly observed that the element of willingness in
disobedience of the order is an indispensable requirement. For
ready reference, the portion of judgment mentioned in Para 15 is
being referred hereunder:-
(4 of 4) [CCP-913/2013]
"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.
"
In view of the above, this Court of the opinion that there is
no deliberate or willing non-compliance of the order dated
24.05.2004 on the part of respondents. Thus, this contempt
petition does not survive and accordingly dismissed. The notices of
contempt are discharged.
There is no order as to costs. The other pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed of
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/111
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
