Bahadur Singh Vs. the Chief Engineer and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/765821
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnJul-10-1992
Case NumberS.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 160 of 1991
Judge K.C. Agrawal, C.J.
Reported in1993(1)WLC721; 1992(2)WLN609
AppellantBahadur Singh
RespondentThe Chief Engineer and ors.
Excerpt:
contempt of courts act, 1971 - contempt--proceeding are quasi-judicial--not a substitute for execution proceedings--amount paid in dispute--held, contempt proceedings cannot be utilized for recovery of money.;contempt rproceedings are in the nature of a quasi criminal proceeding where the evidence against the accused has to be weighed as in a criminal case and established beyond reasonable doubt. it is not a substitute for execution proceedings enforcing the decrees and orders made in favour of a party.;the facts which are in dispute cannot be directed in these proceedings that which amount was actually paid to the petitioner and which remained to be given to him.;the claim for recovery of money made through the contempt application is more than for payment of what the writ petition has been filed. the contempt application could not be utilised for purposes of recovery of money.;petition rejected - - learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to prepare a statement of claim of the salary as well as pension within a period of two months, from today and submit the same to the chief engineer. under this order, the respondents had been directed to pay salary as well as pension within a period of two months of the passing of that order.k.c. agrawal, c.j.1. the petitioner was appointed in engineering subordinate service in the irrigation department in 1956. he retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.3.1988 from the post of assistant engineer. as payment of salary, pension, gratuity and state insurance had not been paid to the petitioner, he filed writ petition no. 1798/1988.2. the writ was contested by the irrigation department asserting that the, petitioner was absconding from service since april 5, 1988. hence, he was not entitled to receive any salary for the period thereafter. the claim for payment of pension and gratuity was also disputed. a learned single judge of this court allowed the writ petition by the judgment dated march 7, 1991 directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay in the revised pay scale rules within two months. the respondents were also directed to pay the pension for the period from 1.4.1988 to 25.5.1990. the insurance and retirement dues were also directed to be settled within one month.3. taking into account the fact that despite specific direction given on 17.5.1990, payment of pension, arrears of salary, gratuity and insurance dues had not been paid to the petitioner, the learned single judge held that the respondents were liable to pay rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner within 15 days. however, he made it clear:this amount shall be adjusted towards the amount of pension which may be found payable to the petitioner in terms of the directions of this court. the respondents shall pay costs of this writ petition to the petitioner which is assessed at rs. 1,0001-.4. as the hon'ble mr. justice g.s. singhvi held that the order dated 17.5.1990 had not been complied with even after expiry of the months' period from 30.5.1990, he issued a notice of contempt to the chief engineer, irrigation: director, state insurance and provident fund department and secretary, irrigation department, government of rajasthan.5. a reply was filed by the respondents stating that rs. 20,000/- had been paid to the petitioner on 18th april, 1991 as per order of this court dated 7th march, 1991. the respondents pleaded that as the petitioner remained absent unjustifiably from duty 16th april, 1980 to 31st march, 1988, the state government vide order dated 26th may, 1990 imposed a penaltyof deducting, of 50% of the pension. this part of the order is quoted below:vr% jkt;iky egksn; jh cgknqj flag lgk;d vfhk;urk lsok fuo`rr flpkbz fohkkx dks mudh 50 izfr'kr isu'ku lnso ds fy, jksdus dk n.m+ nsus ds ,rn~ }kjk vkns'k iznku djrs gs a6. in paragraph-5 of the reply, it was asserted that out of the provisional pension of rs. 24,520/-, the respondents adjusted rs. 20,000/- which had been permitted by this court and paid the balance of rs. 2,388/- to the petitioner.7. this contempt petition was previously listed before hon'ble mr. justice g.s. singhvi, but thereafter, on 6th may, 1991 when it was listed before me, the following order was passed:learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to prepare a statement of claim of the salary as well as pension within a period of two months, from today and submit the same to the chief engineer. upon this receipt bf the statement, the chief engineer will get the figures checked up and then award the amount, whatever is found due to the petitioner. there sahould be no delay in payment.the contempt petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions and the notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.8. on the petition being listed again before hon'ble mr. justice g.s. singhvi, he held that under rule 324(2) the contempt application was to be heard by the chief justice and not by any other bench.9. rule 324(2) reads as under:rule 324(2)the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not be applicable in cases where the contempt consists in disobedience of a judicial order of the high court. in such cases, the bench concerned may pass appropriate order and the application or report need not be laid before the chief justice for orders10. as such, the application has been listed today before me. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. one of the controversy was as to whether the contempt application should have been listed before the learned single judge, breach of whose order alleged to have taken place or before me.11. mr. sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 324(1) for sbumitting that the application for contempt should have been listed before the learned single judge who decided the writ petition, whereas mr. rastogi, learned counsel for the respondents urged that in view of the order dated 6.5.1991, it should be listed before me.12. the order dated 6.5.1991 was an order which had in fact provided a via media for payment of the money found due to the petitioner. sh. rastogi urged that the contempt if any was that of this order which infact being a later one proceeded the earlier.13. the application for contempt had been finally disposed of on 6.5.1991 and then the breach of this order which is said to have been committed by the respondents. under this order, the respondents had been directed to pay salary as well as pension within a period of two months of the passing of that order. the petitioner alleged that even this order had not been complied with by the respondents.14. the directions given vide judgment dated 7.3.1991 by hon'ble mr. justice g.s. singhvi was although in different language, but its purport was the same as the order dated 6.5.1991. the purpose of both the orders was the same.15. the respondents had been made entitled to deduct rs. 20,000/- from the pension under the judgment dated 7.3.1991, after deducting rs. 20,000/- and taking into account the order of the state government directing deduction of 50% out of the pension whatever remained due had been paid to the petitioner.16. therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the respondents had committed breach of the court's order dated 6.5.1991 is not sustainable and the respondents could not be held liable for contempt.17. contempt rproceedings are in the nature of a quasi criminal proceeding where the evidence against the accused has to be weighed as in a criminal case and established beyond reasonable doubt. it is not a substitute for execution proceedings enforcing the decrees and orders made in favour of a party.18. if the petitioner is aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents that payment of entire dues had been made to him, his remedy is not to initiate contempt proceedings as contempt proceedings are not a substitute for enforcement of private legal rights.19. i have gone through the written arguments submitted by mr. sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. he has mentioned the amounts which are due to the petitioner. the details of these amounts are given below:the petitioner has only received in total rs. 372/- p.m. including all the allowances and that to with effect from 26.5.90. when infact, it should have been allowed to be paid to him effect from 1.4.1988. thus, total arrears of pension till 31.5.90 are rs. 2,7181- including dearness allowance and arrears from 1.6.1990 to 31.7.1992 comes to rs. 27,839/-.20. admittedly the petitioner was on deputation with mandi samiti of rajasthan state agriculture marketing board. for this period, the petitioner should have been paid salary by the board and not by the government. however, he has alleged that salary of this period has also not been paid which came to rs. 6,000/-. how the state government was made liable to pay this figure is unexplainable and unacceptable. the respondent has already given its version. similarly about the entitlement to get rs. 44,936/-, the respondent has given its version.21. the facts which are in dispute cannot be directed in these proceedings that which amount was actually paid to the petitioner and which remained to be given to him. the contesting respondents cannot be held guilty of contempt by holding that the payment of the same had since not been made, the respondents had committed breach of the orders dated march 7, 1991 and may 6, 1991. it is only in a case of undisputed claim that it may be possible to hold the defaulter to be guilty of contempt, but where disputed question of fact arise, the court is unable to decide the same. for deciding the dispute oral and documentary evidence have to be taken. without evidence dispute cannot be resolved. the respondents cannot be punished for contempt for non-payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner. the amounts mentioned in the rejoinder are not even the subject matter of the writ petition. in fact, the claim for recovery of money made through the contempt application is more than for payment of what the writ petition has been filed. the contempt application could not be utilised for purposes of recovery of money.22. being of the opinion that the counduct of the respondents was not calculated seriously to interfere with the course of justice, the proceedings are liable to be dropped.23. for the reasons given above, this application is rejected with no order as to costs.
Judgment:

K.C. Agrawal, C.J.

1. The petitioner was appointed in Engineering Subordinate Service in the Irrigation Department in 1956. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.3.1988 from the post of Assistant Engineer. As payment of salary, pension, gratuity and State Insurance had not been paid to the petitioner, he filed writ petition No. 1798/1988.

2. The writ was contested by the Irrigation Department asserting that the, petitioner was absconding from service since April 5, 1988. Hence, he was not entitled to receive any salary for the period thereafter. The claim for payment of pension and gratuity was also disputed. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition by the judgment dated March 7, 1991 directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay in the revised pay scale Rules within two months. The respondents were also directed to pay the pension for the period from 1.4.1988 to 25.5.1990. The insurance and retirement dues were also directed to be settled within one month.

3. Taking into account the fact that despite specific direction given on 17.5.1990, payment of pension, arrears of salary, gratuity and insurance dues had not been paid to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents were liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner within 15 days. However, he made it clear:

This amount shall be adjusted towards the amount of pension which may be found payable to the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court. The respondents shall pay costs of this writ petition to the petitioner which is assessed at Rs. 1,0001-.

4. As the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi held that the order dated 17.5.1990 had not been complied with even after expiry of the months' period from 30.5.1990, he issued a notice of contempt to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation: Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan.

5. A reply was filed by the respondents stating that Rs. 20,000/- had been paid to the petitioner on 18th April, 1991 as per order of this Court dated 7th March, 1991. The respondents pleaded that as the petitioner remained absent unjustifiably from duty 16th April, 1980 to 31st March, 1988, the State Government vide order dated 26th May, 1990 imposed a penaltyof deducting, of 50% of the pension. This part of the order is quoted below:

vr% jkT;iky egksn; Jh cgknqj flag lgk;d vfHk;Urk lsok fuo`Rr flpkbZ foHkkx dks mudh 50 izfr'kr isU'ku lnSo ds fy, jksdus dk n.M+ nsus ds ,rn~ }kjk vkns'k iznku djrs gS A

6. In paragraph-5 of the reply, it was asserted that out of the provisional pension of Rs. 24,520/-, the respondents adjusted Rs. 20,000/- which had been permitted by this Court and paid the balance of Rs. 2,388/- to the petitioner.

7. This contempt petition was previously listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, but thereafter, on 6th May, 1991 when it was listed before me, the following order was passed:

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has agreed to prepare a statement of claim of the salary as well as pension within a period of two months, from today and submit the same to the Chief Engineer. Upon this receipt bf the statement, the Chief Engineer will get the figures checked up and then award the amount, whatever is found due to the petitioner. There sahould be no delay in payment.

The contempt petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions and the notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.

8. On the petition being listed again before Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, he held that under Rule 324(2) the contempt application was to be heard by the Chief Justice and not by any other Bench.

9. Rule 324(2) reads as under:

Rule 324(2)

The provisions of Sub-rule (1) shall not be applicable in cases where the contempt consists in disobedience of a judicial order of the High Court. In such cases, the Bench concerned may pass appropriate order and the application or report need not be laid before the Chief Justice for orders

10. As such, the application has been listed today before me. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. One of the controversy was as to whether the contempt application should have been listed before the learned Single Judge, breach of whose order alleged to have taken place or before me.

11. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on 324(1) for sbumitting that the application for contempt should have been listed before the learned Single Judge who decided the writ petition, whereas Mr. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that in view of the order dated 6.5.1991, it should be listed before me.

12. The order dated 6.5.1991 was an order which had in fact provided a via media for payment of the money found due to the petitioner. Sh. Rastogi urged that the contempt if any was that of this order which infact being a later one proceeded the earlier.

13. The application for contempt had been finally disposed of on 6.5.1991 and then the breach of this order which is said to have been committed by the respondents. Under this order, the respondents had been directed to pay salary as well as pension within a period of two months of the passing of that order. The petitioner alleged that even this order had not been complied with by the respondents.

14. The directions given vide judgment dated 7.3.1991 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi was although in different language, but its purport was the same as the order dated 6.5.1991. The purpose of both the orders was the same.

15. The respondents had been made entitled to deduct Rs. 20,000/- from the pension under the judgment dated 7.3.1991, After deducting Rs. 20,000/- and taking into account the order of the State Government directing deduction of 50% out of the pension whatever remained due had been paid to the petitioner.

16. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the respondents had committed breach of the Court's order dated 6.5.1991 is not sustainable and the respondents could not be held liable for contempt.

17. Contempt rproceedings are in the nature of a quasi criminal proceeding where the evidence against the accused has to be weighed as in a criminal case and established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a substitute for execution proceedings enforcing the decrees and orders made in favour of a party.

18. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents that payment of entire dues had been made to him, his remedy is not to initiate contempt proceedings as contempt proceedings are not a substitute for enforcement of private legal rights.

19. I have gone through the written arguments submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has mentioned the amounts which are due to the petitioner. The details of these amounts are given below:

The petitioner has only received in total Rs. 372/- p.m. Including all the allowances and that to with effect from 26.5.90. When infact, it should have been allowed to be paid to him effect from 1.4.1988. Thus, total arrears of pension till 31.5.90 are Rs. 2,7181- including dearness allowance and arrears from 1.6.1990 to 31.7.1992 comes to Rs. 27,839/-.

20. Admittedly the petitioner was on deputation with Mandi Samiti of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board. For this period, the petitioner should have been paid salary by the Board and not by the Government. However, he has alleged that salary of this period has also not been paid which came to Rs. 6,000/-. How the State Government was made liable to pay this figure is unexplainable and unacceptable. The respondent has already given its version. Similarly about the entitlement to get Rs. 44,936/-, the respondent has given its version.

21. The facts which are in dispute cannot be directed in these proceedings that which amount was actually paid to the petitioner and which remained to be given to him. The contesting respondents cannot be held guilty of contempt by holding that the payment of the same had since not been made, the respondents had committed breach of the orders dated March 7, 1991 and May 6, 1991. It is only in a case of undisputed claim that it may be possible to hold the defaulter to be guilty of contempt, but where disputed question of fact arise, the Court is unable to decide the same. For deciding the dispute oral and documentary evidence have to be taken. Without evidence dispute cannot be resolved. The respondents cannot be punished for contempt for non-payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in the rejoinder are not even the subject matter of the writ petition. In fact, the claim for recovery of money made through the contempt application is more than for payment of what the writ petition has been filed. The contempt application could not be utilised for purposes of recovery of money.

22. Being of the opinion that the counduct of the respondents was not calculated seriously to interfere with the course of justice, the proceedings are liable to be dropped.

23. For the reasons given above, this application is rejected with no order as to costs.