Dr. Amrendra Kumar Pathak & Others vs State of Jharkhand & Others

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party-State.

These contempt applications have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

On 17.01.2020, learned counsel for the opposite parties was directed to file show-cause within a period of three weeks. On 28.02.2020, time was again allowed for compliance of the order. The said order also speaks that petitioner nos. 9 and 10 have been provided the benefit pursuant to the order of this Court, whereas, remaining petitioners have been left out and this submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties was not accepted by the Court and the matter was again adjourned for three weeks for compliance of the order. Again the matter was taken up on 09.10.2020 and on that day, the matter was again adjourned for a week on the request of the learned counsel for the opposite party-State. In the said order dated 09.10.2020, it was also observed that "it is expected by the opposite parties that they will not dupe the Court on the next date of listing and will not play hide and seek in the matter as petitioner nos. 9 and 10 have been given benefit, arising out the same judgment and the rest of the petitioners have been left out".

It appears that the affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. In contempt proceeding, it is expected that higher ranking officer shall file the affidavit.

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party-State submits at bar that the show-cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been put in the drop box of the High Court on 15.10.2020. He further submits that the said show-cause has also been sent on e-mail of the Court. Pursuant thereto, that show-cause has been printed and the same is taken on record. By way of referring paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said show-cause, Mr. Saboo submits that petitioner nos. 9 and 10 were granted grade pay of Rs.6,600/- as they had received 1st ACP in the scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He also submits that the opposite parties have preferred L.P.A. No. 823 of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 182 of 2020.

In spite of the observation made by this Court that it is expected by the opposite parties that they will not dupe the Court on the next date of listing, by way of paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the show-cause the opposite parties again tried to mislead the Court. The Pay Fixation Order being Memo No.660/F dated 28.02.2009 has been transmitted to the Court through e-mail by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is taken on record. On perusal of this document, it transpires that after revision of the pay scale of Rs.8,000- 13,500/-, new pay scale has been reached to Rs.9,300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. It transpires that the opposite parties have not disclosed the basic pay scale of petitioner nos. 9 and 10 and Rs.6,600/- grade pay is provided to them instead of Rs.5,400/- grade pay. Thus, it transpires that the opposite parties have mislead the Court. In the earlier show-cause dated 08.10.2020 filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, it has been stated in paragraph 8 that the opposite party has passed an order contained in memo no.130 (20) dated 30.09.2020 holding that the case of the petitioner would depend on the final outcome of the appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand i.e. L.P.A. No. 182 of 2020. It also transpires that opposite party no.2 has passed further order against the order passed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of brevity, paragraph 8 of the show-cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is quoted herein below:

"8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the state government has preferred an appeal being LPA No.182/2020 against the order dated 13.07.2019 passed in W.P.S. No. 6143 of 2013 which is as on date pending before the Hon'ble court. However in compliance of the order dated 13.07.2019 the opposite party has passed an order contained in memo no.130 (20) dated 30.09.2020 holding that the case of the petitioner would depend on the final outcome of the Appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand (i.e. LPA No. 182 of 2020)."

From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties are bent upon not to comply with the order of this Court as they have tried to mislead the Court, in view of statement made in paragraph 8 of the show-cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, whereby, opposite party no.2 has passed further order as he is the appellate authority of the High Court.

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party-State repeatedly submits that since the L.P.As. have been filed, these matters may be heard after disposal of the said L.P.As.

This is the conduct of the opposite parties and, therefore, this Court is compelled to move further in this contempt proceeding. Contempt is not personal glorification of a Judge in his office, but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of the justice administration system effectively which dictates the conscience of a Judge to move or to not move in contempt jurisdiction. Often an apology is accepted and felony condoned if the Judge feels convinced of the genuineness of the apology and the prestige of the Court having been restored, but here in this case the conduct of the opposite parties is taken care of. It is well settled provision of law that a right or wrong, an order has to be obeyed. The flouting of an order of the Court would render a party liable of contempt of Court. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The Court has duty of protecting interest of the public and as such Contempt of Courts Act is there. Everyone howsoever i.e. may be is bound to implement orders of the Court. Once a direction is issued by the competent Court, it is to be obeyed and implemented without reservation. Only remedy is available to a party who suffers, the order is to challenge in accordance with law and there can be no laxity as otherwise Court orders could be the subject of mockery. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 observed that "the binding of character of judgments of the Courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the rule of law. The Administration of Justice, so much emphasized by the Constitution is founded and a judgment of the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on the merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal and cannot be permitted to be circumvented by a petition under Article 32". Mere filing of an appeal does not stay an order passed by the Court.

The opposite parties are willingly and deliberately bent upon not to comply with the order of the Court in view of the show-cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties, as recorded (supra).

High Court is court of records under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are in contempt. Let notice be issued upon opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in terms of Rule 393 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party-State submits that opposite party no. 4 (Mr. K.K. Khandelwal) has been transferred and Ms. Himani Pandey has taken charge in his place.

Office is directed to incorporate the name of Ms. Himani Pandey in place of Mr. K.K. Khandelwal as opposite party no.4.

Let these matters appear on 27.11.2020.