Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Parihar vs Smt. Rashmi Arun Shami on 20 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1145
1 CONC-259-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 259 of 2025
ARUN KUMAR PARIHAR
Versus
SMT. RASHMI ARUN SHAMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
This Contempt Petition, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been filed on the submissions that co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.06.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.1860 of 2017 had relegated the matter back to the authorities to consider the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the application was rejected on flimsy grounds and therefore respondents have committed contempt by not considering the case of applicant in letter and spirit of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
3. Primary question for consideration is as to whether this Court can go beyond the direction given in writ petition or not?
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kangaro Industries (Regd) & Ors. Vs. Jaininder Jain & Anr. by order dated 06.04.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.5007 of 2008 has held that it is not open to the court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Er. K. Arumugam Vs. Balakrishnan & Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/22/2025 6:11:34 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1145 2 CONC-259-2025 Ors. decided on 06.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2019 has held that court has to confine itself to the four corners of "disobeyed" order while exercising contempt jurisdiction.
6. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are considered then it is clear that co-ordinate Bench after considering the merits of the case had relegated the matter back to the authorities with the following directions:
"Since the Petitioner had not accepted the amount of Rs.100,000/- given to him in lieu of compassionate appointment, this Court in the circumstances deems it fit to relegate the matter back to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the post as per his qualifications as held on the date when he applied for. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside."
Therefore, the respondents were required to decide the question of grant of compassionate appointment. Whether the rejection of application is on sound principles of law or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, with liberty to applicant that if so advised, he can assail the order passed by respondents, this contempt petition is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/22/2025 6:11:34 PM