Pratibha Narayan vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

This Contempt Application has been preferred for taking appropriate action against the opposite parties/contemnor for disobeying order and direction of this Court dated 19.12.2019, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5227 of 2018.

Mr. J.P. Jha, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate submits that it is specific case of the petitioner that juniors to her had been given promotion and the same was clearly admitted by the respondents/ opposite parties. However, on 19.12.2019, when the writ petition was being heard, a specific stand was taken by the respondents/ opposite parties that though admittedly juniors to the petitioner had been granted promotion but case of the petitioner was not considered as a proceeding was pending and punishment of censure was awarded. Due to punishment, petitioner was denied promotion. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of specific plea raised by the petitioner, a direction was given to the respondents/opposite parties to consider case of the petitioner for promotion. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in contempt proceeding, opposite parties have come out with a stand that admittedly juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion but it was due to the prevailing circumstances, she has been denied promotion though the period of censure was over on 22.04.2016.

Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III submits that as the relevant circular was not brought to the notice of the Court and certain documents were not produced, the factual aspects were not considered as because of the Circulars prevailing at that time, though punishment of censure was over, petitioner was denied promotion which was not deliberate rather due to the circular in force. Learned Sr. SC-III further argues that in compliance of the order of this Court, a reasoned order has been passed and as such, there is no wilful disobedience on part of the respondents/ opposite parties. Learned Sr. SC-III places reliance in the Judgment passed on the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291. Paraggraph-6 of the said Judgment reads as under:

"6. The question then is: whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr.S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision take by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had willfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is: whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the single Judge, the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench."

In contempt application, this Court has to see whether order has been complied in true letter and spirit or not.

After hearing the parties, this Court had passed order dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(S) No. 5227 of 2018. Paragraph-10 of the said order reads as under:

"10. Under such circumstances, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent-authorities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for consideration of her case for promotion from the date, juniors to her were considered and granted promotion. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order taking into account that petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date juniors to her have been considered and granted the said promotions. Respondents are further directed to do the entire exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and extend the benefits of promotion along with consequential benefits, in accordance with law, from the date juniors to her have been considered and granted the said benefits."

The specific order of this Court was to pass a reasoned order taking into account that petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date juniors to her had been considered and granted promotion. It appears that respondents/ opposite parties have considered order and direction of this Court and passed reasoned order rejecting claim of the petitioner for promotion. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same if she is at all aggrieved by the same. The scope of contempt cannot be widened by rehearing the matter and re-appreciating the factual aspects.

This Court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out. Consequently, this contempt proceeding is dropped. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the reasoned order.