ASI Abdul Rashid vs State & Ors.

T.S. Doabia, J.—The petitioner's plea is that when persons junior to him were promoted, his claims were not considered. He approached

this Court. A writ petition was preferred by him. This writ petition bears No. SWP 726/94. The further fact is that the respondents did form a view

that petitioner's claims were not properly considered when his juniors were promoted. Accordingly retrospective promotion was given to him with

effect from 24.12.83. An order to this effect was passed on 12.4.1997. Lateron, this order came to be modified. The retrospective benefit was

withdrawn. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

The writ petition stands admitted. Objections were preferred. Lateron opportunity was given to the respondents to file counter. This has not

been done. Objections have been ordered to be treated as counter. The question which is required to be gone into is as to whether the petitioner

was entitled to relief of retrospective promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and as to whether the benefit once given could

be withdrawn.

In the objections preferred by the State the admitted stand is that there was an out of court settlement and therefore the petitioner cannot raise

the plea now raised by him.

A perusal of affidavit filed by the petitioner before the respondent authorities would show that he had only chosen to withdraw the writ petition

with a view to facilitate the respondents to give him appropriate benefits. In the affidavit he had categorically stated that he should be restored his

seniority with effect from 24.12.1983. In any case asking him to limit his relief and only then his claim would be considered would be asking a

person not to take recourse to law courts. This act would fall within the definition of criminal contempt. In Partap Singh and anr. v. Gurbaksh

Singh, AIR 1962 SC 1172 the view expressed was that there are many ways of obstructing the course of justice and any conduct by which the

course of justice is perverted either by a party or a stranger would amount to contempt of court. The use of threat by letter or otherwise to a party

whose suit is pending was held to amount to contempt of court. In the above case, the State Government had issued a circular to the effect that ""it

is improper for a Government servant to take recourse to courts of law without first exhausting the official channels of redress and if any recourse

to courts of law is taken contrary to the circular, it would be regarded as contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and may

justify the initiation of disciplinary action."" This circular was found to be contemptuous in nature. In the present case the stand taken by the

respondents that he can be granted relief if he restricts his claim would therefore fall within the mischief of criminal contempt.

Leaving the matter as it is, the merit of controversy be examined. It is not in dispute that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. This

was mentioned in order dated 20.10.1996. If this be the situation then the withdrawal of the benefit which was granted to him on 12.4.1997 vide

order dated 18.6.1997 could not be sustained. This petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents to confer upon the petitioner

all those benefits which were conferred upon him in the said order. The petitioner would however be entitled to monetary benefits three years prior

to the filing of the writ petition No. 726/94. This is because of law of limitation would permit the petitioner to seek relief in the limited manner

indicated above.

This petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions :

(i) that the petitioner be given benefit of seniority with retrospective effect when his juniors were promoted.

(ii) the monetary benefits be conferred on the petitioner retrospectively i.e. three years prior to filing of the writ petition referred to above.

(iii) let the requisite relief be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date copy of order is made available by the petitioner

to the respondents.

Disposed of as such.