Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh

State of Rajasthan and ors. vs Mohan Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jul 25, 1994
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/668220

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Contempt Petition No. 158 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 1989
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ A.M. Ahmadi and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.] - Constitution of India — Article. 129 — Contempt jurisdiction — Scope — High Court's order becoming final after being upheld by Supreme Court — Such an order, notwithstanding the difficulties involved in implementation thereof, held, cannot be ...

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution Of India - Article 129

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Respondent

Mohan Singh

Legal References

Acts
Constitution Of India - Article 129
Reported In
1995Supp(2)SCC153

Excerpt

- [ a.m. ahmadi and; s.p. bharucha, jj.] - constitution of india - article. 129 - contempt jurisdiction - scope - high court's order becoming final after being upheld by supreme court - such an order, notwithstanding the difficulties involved in implementation thereof, held, cannot be modified by the supreme court in its contempt jurisdiction - hence, directed to be implemented -- the high court order became final after this court disposed of the appeal by a speaking order on 14-8-1989. it was stated that the payment of salary on the aforesaid footing should be made from 1-11-1991. the next question is complying with the remaining part of the high court's order which has become final after the order of this court dated 14-8-1989. mr gupta, learned counsel for the state of rajasthan, pointed out certain difficulties in the implementation of the high court's order. a review application was also made to the high court but the same was rejected by the order of 10-4-1989......of arrears or allowances being made in the future. it was stated that the payment of salary on the aforesaid footing should be made from 1-11-1991. we are told that this order has been substantially complied with.2. the next question is complying with the remaining part of the high court's order which has become final after the order of this court dated 14-8-1989. mr gupta, learned counsel for the state of rajasthan, pointed out certain difficulties in the implementation of the high court's order. the difficulties that he pointed out would require a modification of the high court order which has become final after this court's order which we cannot do in contempt jurisdiction. for that, an application was also made, which, we are told, is rejected. a review application was also made to the high court but the same was rejected by the order of 10-4-1989. similar application was made in this court by way of an interim application but no modification in the order has been made thus far. therefore, the order of the high court affirmed by this court has to be implemented in letter and spirit. we, therefore, direct the state government to implement the said order and grant them time of two months to do so. the contempt petition will stand disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

A.M. Ahmadi and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.

1. The High Court order became final after this Court disposed of the appeal by a speaking order on 14-8-1989. Thereafter, because the State Government went on seeking time for complying with the order, this Court while dealing with the Contempt Petition No. 158 of 1990 passed a further order on 29-10-1991 that since the State Government requires time to work out the particulars for complying with the High Court's order it is desirable that in the meantime the employees identified in the order earlier who have been in employment for ten years or more should be paid salaries on the footing of being permanent and those who have completed two years of employment should be paid salaries on the footing of being semi-permanent. It was also made clear that no payment need be made towards arrears of salary or allowances at this stage. It was clarified that this should not be understood to preclude an order of payment of arrears or allowances being made in the future. It was stated that the payment of salary on the aforesaid footing should be made from 1-11-1991. We are told that this order has been substantially complied with.

2. The next question is complying with the remaining part of the High Court's order which has become final after the order of this Court dated 14-8-1989. Mr Gupta, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, pointed out certain difficulties in the implementation of the High Court's order. The difficulties that he pointed out would require a modification of the High Court order which has become final after this Court's order which we cannot do in contempt jurisdiction. For that, an application was also made, which, we are told, is rejected. A review application was also made to the High Court but the same was rejected by the order of 10-4-1989. Similar application was made in this Court by way of an interim application but no modification in the order has been made thus far. Therefore, the order of the High Court affirmed by this Court has to be implemented in letter and spirit. We, therefore, direct the State Government to implement the said order and grant them time of two months to do so. The contempt petition will stand disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial