AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present contempt petition purporting to be under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner/applicant, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite party for committing contempt of this Court by allegedly disobeying the order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1748 of 1995, Harishanker Tiwari v. Principal G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur Nagar and Ors.
It is, interalia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV Employee (Bearer) in the Department of the opposite party in the year 1982; and that in the year 1994, one Class-Ill post of Opthalmology Technician (O.T.) fell vacant in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital Associated with the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur Nagar; and that the petitioner/applicant filed a representation on 17.9.1994 to the Superintendent-in-Chief, Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital praying for being promoted as Class-III Employee on the aforesaid post of Opthalmology Technician; and that by the order dated 29.10.1994, the petitioner/applicant was promoted to the post of Opthalmology Technician in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040; and that in view of the said promotion order dated 29.10.1994, the petitioner/applicant obtained the charge of the Opthalmology Technician on 31.10.1994; and that thereafter on 31.10.1994, the petitioner/applicant joined on the post of Opthalmology Technician and submitted his joining letter to the Superintendent-in-Chief, Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur Nagar on 31.10.1994; and that the petitioner/applicant was not being paid his salary from the month of November, 1994; and that the petitioner/applicant made representations for the payment of his salary, but the representations of the petitioner/applicant were not considered; and that in the circumstances, the petitioner/applicant filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1748 of 1995; and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.1.1995, interalia, directing the respondent No. 2 in the said writ petition (namely, Superintendent-in-Chief, Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur Nagar) to decide the representations of the petitioner/applicant within the time mentioned in the said order dated 19.1.1995.
The said order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1748 of 1995 is quoted below:
The petitioner in the present writ petition contends that he has been promoted on 29.10.1994 from the post of Bearer (a Class-IV post) to the post of O.T. Technician by the respondent No. 2 and he is entitled to salary to the promoted post but his salary is not being paid to him although he is discharging his duties in the said post. The petitioner contends that several representations have been made to the effect but uptil now such representations have not been disposed of.
In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition without deciding it on merits with a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the said representations of the petitioner dated 9.1.1995 and 12.1.1995 (Annexure Nos. 7(a) and 7(b) respectively to this writ petition) by a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as also the copies of the aforesaid two representations before him.
The present contempt petition was filed on 22.3.1995.
By the order dated 23.3.1995 passed by this Court, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party on the contempt petition. The said order dated 23.3.1995 is reproduced below:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the contempt petition, affidavit and its annexures.
Duly considered the submissions. Since I find a prima facie case for the alleged contempt of court, hence it is ordered.
Issue notice to the sole respondent calling upon him to appear in person on 17.8.95 or through the learned Counsel to show cause as to why he shall not be prosecuted for punishment for the alleged contempt of court for flouting the order of this Hon''ble Court dated 19.1.95 passed in writ petition No. 1748/95.
In the meantime respondent shall make all endeavour to see that the Hon''ble Court''s order be complied with, if the order has been complied with, then an affidavit to that effect may be filed on the date fixed in the case.
In response to the notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 23.3.1995, the opposite party (Dr. S.D. Raghuvanshi) put in appearance and filed his counter affidavit sworn on 16.8.1995.
It is, interalia, stated in paragraph 16 of the said counter affidavit that on 30.1.1995, the petitioner/applicant produced photostat copy of the said order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in the said writ petition alongwith the photostat copies of his representations dated 9.1.1995 and 12.1.1995
In paragraph 3 of the said counter affidavit, it is, interalia, stated that in compliance of the directions given in the said order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the representations of the petitioner/applicant were decided on 7.3.1995, and the information of the same was also given to the petitioner/applicant. Copy of the said order dated 7.3.1995 passed by the opposite party deciding the said representations of the petitioner/applicant dated 9.1.1995 and 12.1.1995 has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the said counter affidavit.
No rejoinder affidavit appears to have been filed by the petitioner/applicant.
None is present for the petitioner/applicant even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
In the circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in the said counter affidavit.
It is, thus, evident that the representations of the petitioner/applicant dated 9.1.1995 and 12.1.1995 were decided by the opposite party on 7.3.1995 in compliance with the directions given by this Court in the said order dated 19.1.1995 passed in the said writ petition. As the photostat copy of the said order dated 19.1.1995 alongwith the photostat copies of the said representations was served by the petitioner/applicant on the opposite party on 30.1.1995, there was only a slight delay in deciding the representations of the petitioner/applicant.
Reasons for the said delay have also been explained in the said counter affidavit, and it is evident that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate.
It is further noteworthy that while issuing the notice to the opposite party by the order dated 23.3.1995, this Court, interalia, observed that "In the meantime respondent shall make all endeavour to see that the Hon''ble Court''s order be complied with, if the order has been complied, then an affidavit to that effect may be filed on the date fixed in the case."
The averments made in the said counter affidavit show that the order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in the said writ petition had already been complied with on 7.3.1995.
It follows from the above discussion that the order dated 19.1.1995 passed by this Court in the said writ petition was complied with by the opposite party. The slight delay in complying with the said directions contained in the said order dated 19.1.1995 has been explained in the said counter affidavit, and it is evident that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate.
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines "Civil Contempt" as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The said Section 2(b) is quoted below:
2(b) ''civil contempt'' means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree , direction , order , writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
It is, thus, evident that mere disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or mere breach of an undertaking given to a court is not sufficient for holding a person liable for contempt of Court. It should further be shown that the said disobedience or breach was wilful on the part of the said person so as to hold him liable for contempt of Court.
In the present case, as noted above, the delay in complying with the directions given by this Court in the said order dated 19.1.1995 passed in the said writ petition was neither deliberate nor wilful. The opposite party cannot, therefore, be said to have committed contempt of this Court.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the opposite party cannot be held guilty of having committed contempt of this Court. The show-cause notice issued to the opposite party is liable to be discharged, and the same is accordingly discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.