Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Singh Lecturer K.S. Inter ... vs Ramesh Singh Dios Ballia on 8 May, 2023
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97908 Court No. - 7 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7166 of 2015 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Lecturer K.S. Inter College And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- Ramesh Singh, DIOS, Ballia Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 01.12.2014 in Writ-A No. 16601 of 2007 passed the following order;
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioners herein are claiming arrears of salary for the months February, 1994 to May, 1994 and July, 1995 to September, 1996 with interest @ 18% per annum.
The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 22.8.2014. In para 9 of the said affidavit it is said that some inquiry was conducted regarding illegal appointment and payment of salary in respect to the institution in question where the petitioners are working. A charge sheet was filed and the name of petitioners were included therein as the persons who were benefited by such illegal appointment and payment of salary.
However, in other paragraph it is stated that the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 27.6.1994 has specifically mentioned that arrears of salary prior to 24.2.1994 was not payable to the petitioners. The said paragraph categorically states that the petitioners would be entitled for arrears of salary after 24.2.1992.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid recital contained in the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 4 is directed to look into the matter and take a decision regarding entitlement of the petitioners for arrears of salary we.f. 25.2.1994, and thereafter, if any. The decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
It is clarified that this court has not considered the merits of the claim of the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."
An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the State wherein in paragraph no. 11 it has been stated that applicants are entitled for the arrears of salary w.e.f. 25.02.1994 and in this regard an order has been passed on 11.02.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 3 to the affidavit of compliance.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court finds that the writ Court on 01.12.2014 had only directed the authorities to take decision in the matter regarding entitlement of the applicants for arrears of salary w.e.f. 25.02.1994. Pursuant to the direction of the writ Court, the authority concerned on 11.02.2023 had taken decision in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the matter should be adjudicated by the contempt Court as the order of the writ Court is of the year 2014 and the District Inspector of Schools after quantification of the amount has sent the same in the year 2023 but the Director of Education, Secondary, till date withholding the file and not releasing the amount in favour of the applicants.
This Court is a Court of execution and not a Court of adjudication. As the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the claim of the applicants which the authorities had already done, this Court cannot venture into the merits of the case and decide the claim of the applicants.
Recently, the Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
In view of the said fact, as the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the claim of the applicants, which the opposite party had already done and decided the same on 11.02.2023, nothing remains to be adjudicated by this Court.
Contempt applicant is dismissed.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
File consign to record.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Shekhar