U.B. Saha, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Risom, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the respondents/alleged contemners.
2. The instant contempt petition is filed by the petitioners for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for their willful violation and deliberate disobedience of order of this Court dated 8-9-2000 passed in C.R. No. 202 of 1998, wherein this Court disposed the writ petition with the following directions:
1) Let the members of the Organisation who have already put in service for 7 years and above as on 1st July, 2000 be regularized by absorbing them in various categories/ranks in the SSB Organisation, subject to eligibility and suitability of each person. While doing so, however, it shall be borne in mind that the initial recruitment of the members of the Organisation has been done carefully and strictly and in fact by going through rigorous procedures.
2) Let regular scale of pay be made available to such regularized /absorbed person with effect from 1-7-2000.
3) The members of the Organisation shall not be entitled to get back-wages/arrear pay and allowances. The entire length of service, however, shall be taken into consideration for pensionary and other service benefits.
4) Let the cases of persons who have put in service less than 7 years as on 1-7-2000 be considered within the office Memo of 2nd June, 1999.
This direction shall be carried out within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order.
3. Subsequently, the judgment and order of the learned single Judge was upheld by the learned Division Bench vide its order dated 24-1 -2001 by way of certain modification in WA No. 142 of 2001 as follows:
This being the position, we find no difficulty for the Union of India to comply with the said order. So far Clause Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the direction given by the learned single Judge are concerned, we find nothing to interfere. So far Clause No. 2 is concerned; learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel submits that in order to comply the entire order passed by the learned single Judge they need some time to complete the exercise and the payment as ordered by the learned Single Judge w. e. f. 1 -7-2000 would be impracticable.
Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on that point also. We are of the opinion that the Central Government must regularize the services of the volunteers as mentioned in Clause (1) of the impugned judgment w. e. f. that date of judgment viz. 8-9-2000 instead of 1-7-2000. The exercise as directed above, must be completed within three months.
With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
4. The Apex Court also confirmed the said judgment of the learned Division Bench while disposing the SLP No. 8704 of 2001 on 21-2-2003.
In reply to the show cause, the respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition raising the question of maintainability on the ground that the contempt petition is hit by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as the instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court on 22-9-2004 i.e. after expiry of period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. It is further contended that the respondents have complied with the Court's order dated 8-9-2000 passed in C.R. No. 202 of 1998 vide its order dated 1-1-2004 and in view of the said order there cannot be any contempt on the part of the respondents/alleged contemners and it is also settled by the Apex Court that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum but not by way of contempt petition. Respondents also denied the allegations made by the petitioners. For easy reference, order dated 1-1-2004 issued by the Commandant, 22nd BN SSB Ranidanga is reproduced hereunder:
GOVT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT
22nd BATTALION (SSB) RANIDANGA
P.O: MATIGARA, Dist. : DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL
ORDER
In compliance to the, judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, dated 8-9-2000 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21-2-2003, and Force SSB Hqr Memo No. 1/SSB/Rectt(WB)/03 Dt. Nil received under Ftr. Hqr. Patna Memo No. VIII-59/FHQ-PATNA/2003/7009-18 dt. 18-10-2003, Shri Pachungnung S/o Lt. Chonglian is hereby appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3050-75-2950-80-4590/- with effect from 1-1-2004 (FN) against existing vacancy of Constable (GD) in 22 ND Battalion (SSB) Ranidanga. He will also be entitled to draw DA and other allowances at the rates as admissible to Central Govt. Employees and subject to the condition laid down in rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances in force from time to time.
2. The terms of appointment are as follows:
(i) The post is temporary and likely to be permanent. His permanent appointment to the post, however, will depend on various factors governing permanent appointment to such posts in force at that time.
(ii) The appointment is purely temporary. The appointment, may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side viz. the appointing authority or the appointee without assigning any reason. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right of terminating the services of appointee forthwith or without notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof.
(iii) The appointment carries with it, the liability to serve in any part of India or outside.
(iv) He will have to undergo various training courses as may be prescribed.
(v) He will have to successfully complete Basic Recruit Training Course on his being detailed by SSB.
(vi) He will hot be entitled to any TA/DA for Joining the first appointment.
(vii) On joining SSB he will be governed by CRPF Act/Rules, Manual and other orders as amended from time to time.
(viii) His seniority in the Battalion will be counted from the date of appointment as Ct/GD but service rendered in the WF will be counted for pensionary and other benefits as per Rules. However, amongst WF Volts, seniority will be maintained based on his inter se seniority in the WF.
(ix) No arrears of pay would be admissible to volunteers as per Force HQ Memo No. referred to above.
3. His particulars are as under:
(a) Date of birth 29-12-1952
(b) Educational Qualification:
Pre-University Exam, Passed.
(g) Whether SC/ST/OBC : ST
(h) A certificate regarding his Character and Antecedents issued by Sub-Deputy Collector, Churachandpur vide No. DC (CCP)/ Jdl/85-54(pt) dt. 22-12-2003, has been submitted by him in this office.
4. He is allotted Badge No. S/040160631 and posted to 'D' Coy'.
5. Mr. S. Risom, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the date of alleged contempt has to be counted from the date of order i.e. 1-1 -2004 and not from the period of expiry of 3 (three) months from the date of order of the Apex Court. He also' submits that the order passed by the respondents on the basis of the directions issued by the Court will not relieve them from the liability of the contempt. He also argued that the respondents though provided regular pay scale notionally, have not allowed the petitioners regular scale of pay as ordered by the learned single Judge which had been upheld by the Apex Court ultimately.
6. While resisting the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that every violation of Court's order cannot be treated as contempt unless the said order is violated intentionally or with oblique motive to frustrate the order of this Court or to lower down the majesty of the Court. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the respondents complied with the Court's order by way of passing order dated 1-1 -2004; and whether that compliance is proper compliance of the Court's order or not, may be a subject matter of this Court when this Court exercises its Jurisdiction of Judicial review, not under contempt jurisdiction. He also submits that once an order is passed by the respondents complying the Court's order, then a fresh cause of action arises for the petitioners to seek redressal in an appropriate forum in view of the decision of the Apex Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganapat Duggar and Ors. : AIR1997SC113 . He also refers to para Nos. 7 and 8 of the decision of this Court (Division Bench) dated 8-5-2007 passed in Cont. Case (C) No. 221 of 1999 (reported in AIR 2008 Gauhati 98); All Manipur Aided Elementary Schools unap-proved Teachers Association, Manipur represented by its General Secretary v. Shri Henry K. Heni, IAS & 12 Ors., which is reproduced hereunder:
(7) Before consideration of submission of learned Counsel for the parties we think it would be proper on our part to reproduce the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 (for short Contempt Act) and also paragraph 44 of the Pallav Seth : 2001CriLJ4175 (supra) respectively hereunder for better appreciation.
20. Limitation for actions for contempt. No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
44. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
(8) From the aforesaid Provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt Act, a reasonable man can, easily come to a conclusion that the legislature by way of enacting the said provision prescribed the period of limitation for initiating a proceeding under the said Act or in other words put certain restrictions on the Court for taking actions for contempt after the period of limitation prescribed. As the said provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt Act is a mandatory one it would not be proper for the Court to frustrate the legislative mandate. Undoubtedly, the High Court is not powerless even when the period of one year is expired from the date of alleged violation of Court's order, Court can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution, but the case in hand is not such a one, where court can exercise its inherent power.
7. This Court has given anxious thought to the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant records and law reports cited by the parties. And according to this Court this is not a fit case where Court should initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents as the respondents have already complied with the Court's order for violation of which, present contempt petition is filed. In para 6 in the case of J.S. Parihar AIR 1997 SC 113 (supra) their Lordships of the Apex Court specifically held that: '....It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order.'
8. And in the instant case also it can be said by the petitioner that the said order is a wrong one not in conformity with the direction of the Court but that cannot be a ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents as from the said order a new cause of action arises for the petitioners to avail the opportunity of filing review. Not only that, according to this Court, the date of alleged contempt should be from the date of expiry of three months from the date of order of the Apex Court dated 21-2-2003 i.e. the date on which the judicial proceedings ended. It is admitted position that the present contempt petition is filed on 22-9-2004, therefore, the contention of Mr. N. Ibotombi, so far the present contempt petition being hit by provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has some force. Whether the order dated 1-1-2004 by which the respondents allegedly complied with the Court's order is correct or not, such issue cannot be decided by this Court sitting in contempt jurisdiction. It is open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate remedy, if they consider that the compliance of the order of this Court by the respondents is not properly done.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons the instant contempt petition is closed. No order as to costs.