N.C. Goyal And Ors. @APPELLANT@Hash Shri Ashok Sampat Ram

Non compliance of the order dated 14.2.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1669/1995 has been alleged. The said writ petition was allowed and the

respondents therein were directed to release full pensionary benefits to the petitioner at par with those who had opted pursuant to the Notification

dated 10.6.1975/25.7.1975. The respondents were also directed to continue to pay future pension as well to the petitioner as admissible.

Aggrieved of Non compliance with the directions of the Court, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 429/2002. On the said contempt

petition coming up before this Court on 12.12.2006, the Court noted that :

“Substantial compliance has been made and so far as interest is concerned, the State has preferred appeal and subject to decision of the appeal, the

petitioner shall be entitled for interest on the delayed payment and other dues which are claimed by the petitioner.â€​

The contempt petition was dismissed.

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 4/2003 titled The Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Versus N.C. Goyal against the judgment dated

14.2.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1669/1995 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.1.2014 in view of its judgment passed on

the same day in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 579/2003 titled The Rajasthan State Agro Industries Versus R.K. Suri & Anr. This second

contempt petition thereupon came to be filed before this Court on 13.2.2015.

Mr. Ajeet Bhandari appearing for the petitioner submitted that in its order dated 14.2.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1669/1995, this Court had

directed the respondents to release full pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It has been submitted that it has not been so done, albeit petitioner has

been paid pension taking into consideration 24 years of pensionable service when in-fact he is entitled to 29 years of pensionable service for

computation of his pension. It was submitted that this short payment of pension constitutes contempt of the order of the court passed on 14.2.2002.

To a specific query by this Court as to how a second contempt petition was maintainable, Mr. Ajeet Bhandari submitted that wholistic reading of order

dated 12.12.2006 whereby petitioner’s earlier contempt petition no. 429/2002 was dismissed left scope for a second contempt petition inasmuch as

it was recorded that following decision on the appeal against the order dated 14.2.2002 the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed

payment of pension and other dues claimed by him. It was submitted that in this view of the matter subsequent to the dismissal of the State’s

appeal on 29.1.2014, this contempt petition has been filed which is thus maintainable.

Ms. Charu Jain appearing for Mr. JM Saxena, AAG for the contemnors submitted that second contempt petition is not maintainable as held by this

Court in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1135/2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2006 â€" Laxmi Narain Sharma & Anr. Versus Shri

Madhukar Gupta & Ors.; decided on 28.10.2014 wherein it was held as under:

“It is well settled that on a judgment being rendered on a cause of action, the cause of action merges into the judgment and cannot by itself be the

foundation of another legal proceeding. The cause of action with the petitioners in filing the first contempt petition no. 477/2009 for alleged non-

compliance of the order dated 8.12.2008 passed in SBCWP No. 2610/2006 merged with the dismissal of the said contempt petition. On the same

cause of action, in terms of settled law, a fresh contempt petition is not maintainable â€" the liberty granted by the Court notwithstanding. The liberty

granted by this Court cannot be construed as overriding the well settled law of the land that a cause of action merges into decision rendered

thereon.â€​

                      Ms. Charu Jain submitted that even otherwise compliance with the order dated 14.2.2002

has been made as in the consideration of the concerned Department on taking voluntary retirement, he was held entitled to pensionable service of 24

years. It was submitted that the petitioner is being accordingly paid pension reckoning for his service for a period of 24 years of service as per the

extant Rules of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation and the retirement scheme dated 25.5.1990. It has been submitted that since the

petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement, he was entitled to Basic Pay of Rs 4000+ Dearness Allowance of Rs. 1505/- per month and

compensation amount of Rs. 1,98,180/- for a period of 5 years of service. It has been submitted that the petitioner has also been paid Rs. 4,61,246/- as

interest on the delayed pension made over to him, aside Rs. 7,31,178/- as arrears on account of pension. All payments have been made after statutory

deductions. Monthly pension is also being paid to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the issue of pensionable service of the petitioner was in any

event not the subject matter of the judgment of the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1669/1995 decided on 14.2.2002 and alleged erroneous

determination of pensionable service cannot be made the foundation of this Contempt petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for him to take his

remedies against the wrongful calculation of pension as alleged in this contempt petition, but he cannot require this Court in its contempt jurisdiction to

address that issue.

Heard. Considered.

From the record of the contempt petition, it is evident that vide order dated 12.12.2006 S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 429/2002 was dismissed albeit

the Court noted that interest on delayed payment and “other dues†claimed by the petitioner had not been paid, for reason of pendency of the

appeal against the order dated 14.2.2002.

The fact however remains that the contempt petition was dismissed. In this view of the matter, as held by this Court in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition

No. 1135/2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2006, I am of the considered view that this second contempt petition is not maintainable. Besides

there is also the issue of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971. This contempt petition against the alleged Non

compliance of the direction in the judgment dated 14.2.2002 has been filed in 2015. And even if limitation is reckoned from the dismissal of the D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 4/2003 titled The Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Versus N.C. Goyal against the judgment dated 14.2.2002 on

29.1.2014 it as filed on 13.2.2015 is beyond the one year limitation under Section 20 of the Act of 1971 and hence not maintainable.

Aside of the aforesaid, the issue of pensionable service of the petitioner as to whether it should be 24 years as asserted by the contemnors or 29 years

as asserted by the petitioner by Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, was not a matter of consideration or adjudication by the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

1669/1995. Resultantly that issue cannot be at the foundation of this contempt petition. The contemnors have taken a stand that the petitioner was only

entitled to 24 years of pensionable service aside of other payments due under the Retirement Scheme dated 25.5.1990 of the Rajasthan State Agro

Industries Corporation Ltd. which have been made.

In the facts obtaining, I would therefore be disinclined to hold the respondents in contempt petition. If aggrieved of the short payment of pension,

which the petitioner claims, he shall be free to take his remedies thereagainst in accordance with law. Needless to state that any observations adverse

to the petitioner on issue of pensionable service to which he is entitled under retirement Scheme dated 25.5.1990 of the Rajasthan State Agro

Industries Corporation Ltd if at all or any where made or discernible from this judgment shall not adversely effect the petitioner in the event of his

taking proceedings qua the quantum of pension sanctioned to him.

Contempt petition accordingly disposed of.