U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd vs Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal Uttarakhand (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, along with all proceedings of Contempt Petition No. C/46/N.B/2009 pending before the Tribunal.

The second respondent herein filed Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to declare that he was promoted, as a Marketing Officer (Grade-II), w.e.f. 1994 and as a Senior Marketing Officer w.e.f 1998, along with the cost of the petition.

In its order, in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, the Tribunal considered it just, proper and expedient to direct the petitioner herein to consider the case of the second respondent herein for promotion to the post of Marketing Officer, as well as to the post of Senior Marketing Officer, from the due dates within three months from the date of receipt of the order; and to pass appropriate orders regarding promotion and other financial benefits, as was given to other officers in similar position. The Claim Petition was allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to consider the case of the second respondent herein, for promotion to the posts from the due dates, and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

The petitioner herein considered the case of the second respondent and promoted him to the post of Marketing Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1996. He was, however, not promoted to the post of Senior Marketing Officer. Alleging that the action of the petitioner herein was in willful and deliberate violation of the order passed by the Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, the second respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. C/46/N.B./2009.

In its interlocutory Order dated 28.12.2011 passed in the Contempt Petition, the Tribunal held that there was a specific direction to consider the case of the second respondent for a second promotion from the due date; he was denied promotion on flimsy grounds; the second respondent should be deemed to be promoted, to the post of Senior Manager, w.e.f. 01.07.1996 on which date Shri Neeraj Pandey was promoted; subsequently Shri Neeraj Pandey was promoted again, and there was no justification for not granting promotion to the second respondent in the higher post; it was apparent from the records that the second respondent was eligible for a second promotion also; and denial of the second promotion to the second respondent herein was in violation of the directions issued by the Tribunal. One more opportunity was given by the Tribunal, to the petitioner, to consider the case of the second respondent, for a second promotion, from the due date. The petitioner herein was directed to consider the case of the second respondent again, for promotion from the due date, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, within two months.

The Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal is a Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short the "1976 Act"). Section 5-A of the 1976 Act relates to the power to punish for contempt and, thereunder, without prejudice to the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the High Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to it, the Tribunal shall have and exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as the High Court has, and may exercise, in respect of contempt of itself, and for this purpose the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply. Under Section 5-A(c)(i)(1) of the 1976 Act an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the Tribunal, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, to the High Court.

The appellate remedy, under Section 5-A(c)(i)(1) of the 1976 Act, is only against the order passed by the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and, since the order impugned in the Writ Petition is not an order of punishment, the remedy of an appeal, under Section 5-A(c)(i)(1) of the 1976 Act, is not available to the petitioner. Consequently their only remedy, against such an order, was to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is well settled, as held by the Supreme Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati : (2001) 7 SCC 530; and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh : (2002) 4 SCC 21, that proceedings, under the Contempt of Courts Act, are quasi criminal in nature; and it is only where a clear case of a willful and deliberate violation of the order is made out beyond reasonable doubt, can the Tribunal exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

As noted hereinabove by its order, in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to consider the case of the second respondent for two promotions, the first as a Marketing Officer and the second as a Senior Marketing Officer. The petitioner herein promoted the second respondent to the post of Marketing Officer. He was, however, denied promotion to the post of Senior Marketing Officer by the order of the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation. The order passed by the Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, required the petitioner herein to consider the case of the second respondent for promotion. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein considered the case of the second respondent for promotion, but chose not to grant him promotion as a Senior Marketing Officer. If the second respondent was of the view that consideration of his candidature, for promotion to the post of Senior Marketing Officer, was not in accordance with law, his remedy was to file a Claim Petition afresh questioning the order whereby his claim, for promotion as a Senior Marketing Officer, was rejected, and not to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

In the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, it is not open to the Tribunal to go beyond the order passed in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, and determine whether the order, rejecting the candidature of the second respondent for promotion as a Senior Marketing Officer, is in accordance with law or not. The jurisdiction, under the Contempt of Courts Act, can only be exercised where a clear case of willful and deliberate violation of the order of the Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009, is made out. Further, the contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised only to punish the petitioner herein, in case it had willfully and deliberately violated the order. It was not open to the Tribunal, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, to issue further directions in addition to what were issued earlier in its order in Claim Petition No. 02/N.B/2006 dated 30.07.2009.

The order of the Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. C/46/N.B./2009 dated 28.12.2011 is, therefore, set-aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.