Shakuntla Khagta vs Manmohan Sharma

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of the directions which stood issued by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1391 of 2016, titled as Shakuntla Khagta vs. Manmohan Sharma, dated 20.04.2016, which original application stood disposed of by learned Tribunal in the following terms:-

"In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment in L.P.A. No. 36 of 2010, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment, if the same has attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, in any, as per law, without any discrimination, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the applicant."

Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the order passed by the learned Tribunal stood complied with and the competent authority has taken a decision on the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by learned Tribunal, as would be evident from order, Annexure R-I, dated 30.11.2017, appended with the reply filed to the petition.

Mr. Prem Pal Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the order was passed by the competent authority within the time as was mentioned in the order passed by learned Tribunal nor within some reasonable time thereafter. As per him, it was only after the petitioner knocked the doors of the Court with regard to non-compliance of the directions issued by the Court by way of a contempt petition that, in a haphazard manner, belatedly an order has been passed, vide which also the claim of the petitioner was only partly allowed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court concurs with the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that appropriate order was not passed by the competent authority either within the time granted by the learned Tribunal or within some reasonable time thereafter. Why so? Nothing is apparent from the response filed to the contempt petition.

All that this Court can observe is that the respondents are bound to implement the directions which are passed by the Court or the Tribunal in letter and spirit and within the time frame as may be spelled out in the order or the judgment. In case, the authority is not able to do so, then the course open for the authority is to approach the Court or the Tribunal explaining the reasons as to why the compliance of the order could not be done within the time contemplated in the order and seek extension of time for complying with the order.

This Court has observed in general that in majority of the original applications wherein said cases stood disposed off by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, directing the competent authority to pass appropriate orders in a time bound period, the directions so issued by the learned Tribunal were not complied with by the competent authority, within the time stipulated in the order by the learned Tribunal or within some reasonable time thereafter. Only after the aggrieved party approached the Tribunal by way of contempt petition, orders stood passed and in majority of the cases, the orders were passed against the employees, as a knee-jerk reaction of the employee having approach the learned Tribunal by way of contempt proceedings.

This Court deprecates the practice of not complying orders passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal within the time period stipulated therein. This is indeed a reflection of the seriousness with which the orders passed by the Tribunal were taken by the Authorities concerned and the respect they had for the verdicts of the learned Tribunal.

The majesty of the Court of law is supreme and it is the duty of every citizen of the country to comply with the directions passed by the Courts or Tribunals. This, of course, is subject to the right of the party to either seek review of the order or assail it in the higher Forum, in case a party is aggrieved by the order.

Be that as it may, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is called upon to issue necessary instructions directing all concerned to comply with the orders of the Courts and Tribunals in letter and spirit within the time period granted therein. Of course, in case of any difficulty, the authorities concerned can approach the Court for extension of time by giving legitimate reasons. However, the authorities should not sit over the orders passed by the Court and take a call on the orders after the party approaches the Court by way of contempt petition.

Uptill now, this Court has been lenient in this regard and the attitude of the officers of sitting over the orders passed by the Courts/Tribunals has been overlooked. However, in future, this Court shall take a very serious view in case it comes to the conclusion that there has been a willful omission on the part of the authority concerned of not complying with the orders passed by the Court/Tribunal within the time frame as stands granted.

State has to appreciate that this Court is not suggesting as to what orders the authority should pass because that, of course, is the prerogative of the authority concerned and the authority is expected to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the facts of the matter in hand. However, by not passing the orders within the time granted by the Court, the litigating party is put to unnecessary harassment and is forced to undergo another round of litigation by approaching the Court by way of contempt proceedings. This is easily avoidable in case orders passed by the Courts/Tribunals are complied with within the given time frame.

Coming to the facts of this case. As in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the competent authority did pass an order, though belatedly, contempt proceedings are dropped by discharging the notice, however, with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the competent authority (Annexure R-I), before the appropriate Forum/Court, if so advised, in case she is still aggrieved.

Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to apprise the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh of the directions so passed by this Court.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), in any.