Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Satish Gupta vs Smt. Salina Singh on 25 July, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CONC No.1206/2019
(Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others)
Gwalior, Dated : 25.07.2019
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
This contempt petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act for non-compliance of the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6000/2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Writ Petition No.6000/2019 which was filed by the petitioner is pending for consideration and vide order dated 20.03.2019, the Court granted interim relief as follows :-
"Subject to furnishing an undertaking by the petitioner before the appointing authority to the effect that in case if the petition is dismissed, then he would repay the entire salary received by him during the extended period, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service after 31/10/2018 and his continuance shall remain subject to final decision of this petition."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order, the same was served alongwith representation on 27.03.2019 through Registered Post. A copy of the document is 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. Subsequently on 28.03.2019 the copy of order passed by the Court was served on contemner No.3. Again on 30.03.2019 the petitioner has submitted his undertaking through registered post to contemner No.2. Simultaneously on the same date at 2:15 PM undertaking through e-mail was also forwarded to contemner No.2. A copy of the letter alongwith postal receipt is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure -C and proof in regard to sending of e-mail is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. It is required to mention here that in compliance of order passed by the Court applicant has duly communicated the undertaking alongwith the representation to the erring authorities but no heed has been paid and in pursuance to the order of this Court contemners are not allowing the petitioner to join the duty despite having knowledge even about passing of the order by this Court. Letter (Annexure-E) has been sent wherein petitioner is shown to be superannuated w.e.f. 30.03.2019, as on 31.03.2019 there was Sunday. The act and conduct of contemner No.3 clearly shows willful and deliberate non compliance of the order. The said act is contemptuous one and all the contemners deserve to be prosecuted and punished for the same. The document in shape of 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) envelope and receipt affixed on the back side clearly shows the malafide because on the front side of envelope one dispatch number was shown bearing the date to be 30.03.2019, but the postal receipt of the envelope speaks otherwise because the same is bearing the date 02.04.2019, which indicates the fact that the order dated 30.03.2019 was passed with a malice and reflects the willful and deliberate contemptuous act of contemtnors. Copy of the envelope is marked as Annexure-F. The notice (Annexure -G) has already been sent but is of no avail and till today the contemnors are continuing with their contemptuous act, which amounts to interference in dispensation of justice, for which the matter is required to be viewed seriously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it is essential to maintain the existence of legal system that the order of the court shall not only be enforced but shall also be protected. Here, the order dated 30.03.2015 is clear proof of contempt. The act of respondents is disobedience to the Court and opposition to authority of justice. If such acts are being upheld then there will be unending process of litigation even after finalization of order. The mandate of the Court is required to be complied with and 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) implemented and the defiance thereof will fall within the scope and ambit of contempt of order of the Court. It is creating hindrance in flowing of stream of justice. Hence, the petitioner craves liberty to amend, alter, he prayed that petition be allowed and cognizance for contempt of the Court be taken and the contemners be punished.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Court in W.P.No.6000/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta v. State of M.P. and others). First of all the answering respondents are tendering their unconditional apology, if it appears to the Court that any contempt is made out arising out of the interim order dated 20.03.2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The respondents always pay highest regard to the Courts' order and their verdict.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the reply in the writ petition has already been filed and an application for vacating interim order dated 20.03.2019 has been filed, which is pending adjudication before the Court. The respondents have filed copy of the return filed by the respondents and copy of the 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) application for vacating interim order as Annexures C/1 and C/2 respectively. From the bare perusal of the Annexure enclosed with the return in the writ petition, it is clear that the benefit of extension of age of superannuation is only given to the staff engaged in Classroom teaching and non-teaching staff such as Librarians, Sports Officers and Officers working on other administrative posts shall remain in service up to 62 years. While passing the order dated 20.03.2019 there was no material available to consider the aforesaid legal position. However, the order dated 20.03.2019 was passed that subject to furnishing an undertaking by the petitioner before the appointing authority to the effect that in case, if the petition is dismissed then he would repay the entire salary received by him during the extended period, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service after 31.10.2018 and his continuance shall remain subject to final decision of writ petition. The petitioner has only submitted the application forwarding the order passed by the Court on 20.03.2019. But, no undertaking has been submitted by him and thus there is no willful non-compliance of the order passed by the Court by the answering respondents. Moreover, petitioner has been retired on 31.03.2019 and there is no order in favour of the 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) petitioner to continue in service after 31.03.2019. Thus, the allegations of non-compliance of order is not sustainable.
It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that even otherwise, the law is well settled that retirement of a person cannot be stayed as it amounts to granting of final relief in the nature of interim relief. Since, the continuance in service has already been made subject to the final decision of writ petition, the rights of the petitioner with regard to service benefits, as claimed by him, would be decided in the writ petition and therefore, continuing the petitioner in service is not necessary. Since the application for vacating interim order dated 20.03.2019 is already filed and pending before the Court, no adjudication is possible in the present contempt petition. The petitioner is well aware about the filing of application for vacating of the interim relief, but, even then he has filed the contempt petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents thus submitted that till the application for vacation interim relief is pending, no contempt would lie against the respondents, for non-compliance of the order dated 20.03.2019. The petitioner, being Sport Officer has no parity with the Teachers engaged in Classroom teaching and therefore, the 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) amendment in the retirement age from 62 years to 65 years in M.P Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 is not applicable to the petitioner and he is not entitled to the extension of age of superannuation. In the aforesaid factual position, contempt of the interim order has not been made out and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Since the order passed in W.P.No.6000/2019 has been substantially complied with, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Court has already been complied with, therefore, contempt proceedings initiated against the answering respondents may be dropped in the interest of justice. Hence, he prayed that this compliance report be considered and taken on record and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed and Rule nisi be discharged.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On perusal of record, it is apparent that the original writ petition in which interim order has been passed is still pending. Interim order so passed shall have force unless otherwise directed and should be complied with, as the same is continuing till final disposal of the writ petition.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC No.1206/2019 (Dr. Satish Gupta Vs Smt. Salina Singh & others) an opportunity is granted to the respondents to comply with the order dated 20.03.2019 within a period of 15 days from today, failing which this Court may constrain to direct personal presence of the respondents before this Court.
List the case in the week commencing 12.08.2019.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge AK/-
ANAND KUMAR 2019.07.25 19:03:59 +05'30'