Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Indu Lal Jagid S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad ... vs Ramavtar Jain on 29 January, 2020
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 132/2019
In
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.280/2017
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4442/2003
Indu Lal Jangid S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Jangid, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Village Rasulpur, Teh. Fatehpur-Shekhawati, Distt.
Sikar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramavtar Jain, Secretary To The Management Committee
of Shri Ramrikdas Poddar Balika Vidhya Mandir And Balika
Senior Secondary School, Fatehpur-Shekhawati, Distt.
Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Nathmal Didel, Commissioner, Secondary School
Education, Bikaner.
3. Shri Bhashkar A. Sawant, Principal Secretary Secondary
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Raj.
4. Shri Mukesh Kumar Mehta, District Education Officer,
Secondary Education, Sikar, Raj.
----Contemnor/Non-Petitioners
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shiv Charan Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Shri Ajay Raj Tantia, Shri Ganesh Meena, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment Judgment Reserved on :: 16/01/2020 Judgment Pronounced on :: 29/01/2020 (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (2 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL):
1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 21.3.2018 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.280/2017.
2. The facts as emerge from the record are that the services of the petitioner, who was working as Lecturer with Balika Senior Secondary School being run and managed by the respondent no.1-Management Committee of Shri Ram Rikhdas Poddar Balika Vidhya Mandir (for brevity-"the institution") were terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1997 vide order dated 31.5.1997. The Rajasthan Non-
Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (for brevity- "the Tribunal") vide its order dated 1.5.2002 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, set aside the order dated 31.5.1997, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service and actual monetary benefits subject to condition that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary for the period he has served anywhere else for which he was required to furnish an undertaking with the respondent-institution. The writ petition no.4442/2003 preferred by the institution against the order dated 1st May, 2002 came to be decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.12.2016, whereby maintaining the order of reinstatement, the petitioner was held not entitled for the back wages from the date of termination order till the date of the judgement i.e. 15.12.2016. The D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.280/2017 preferred by the petitioner herein, came to be allowed by the division bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.2018 whereby the petitioner was held entitled for back wages, subject to furnishing an undertaking within 30 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order; failing which, it (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (3 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] was held that he would not be entitled for back wages upto the date of order passed by the Tribunal. It was further directed that for the subsequent period also, an undertaking of the similar nature would be furnished within the period given above, failing which the wages after the order of the Tribunal would also not be admissible.
3. Alleging that in spite of submitting the requisite undertaking by him, the respondents have violated the aforesaid directions, the appellant has preferred the present contempt petition.
4. The respondent no.1 in its reply to the contempt petition stated that in pursuance of the direction dated 21.3.2018, the petitioner submitted the declaration dated 23.3.2018 stating falsely that he has not worked anywhere else except for the period from 5.12.1997 to 30.4.1998 and from 7.9.1999 to 16.5.2000; whereas, apart from the aforesaid period, he has worked from 15.10.2008 to 16.12.2010 at Shri Dedraj Khaitan Higher Secondary School Losal, District Sikar, from 10.9.2012 to 16.05.2013 at Radhakrishan Maru Senior Secondary School, Sikar and from 16.10.2015 to 5.2.2016 at Shanti Niketan Senior Secondary School, Shiot Bady, Sikar.
5. Petitioner in his rejoinder dated 13.8.2019 submitted that he has filed the declaration dated 23.3.2018 as directed by this Court vide its order dated 21.3.2018, which he has placed on record as Annexure-P/3 along with his additional affidavit dated 8.5.2019. With regard to his working at three other institutions as detailed by the respondent no.1 in its reply, although, the petitioner stated that in the earlier contempt petition no.235/2017 filed by him for non-compliance of order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2016, the respondent no.1 has not taken any such plea in (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (4 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] its reply and for the first time, the institution has come with this new plea; but, admitted that he has worked with the additional three institutions as it was for earning of his basic livelihood for his children.
6. The order dated 30.10.2019 passed in this contempt petition, records categorical statement of the petitioner that except the three spells pointed out by the respondent no.1 in its reply apart from the two spells already mentioned in the declaration dated 23.3.2018, he has not worked anywhere else and the petitioner undertook to file an affidavit on oath incorporating the aforesaid statement. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed his additional affidavit dated 30.10.2019 wherein he has given details of five institutions in all where he has worked after the termination of his services. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed an application dated 25.11.2019 stating therein that even the additional affidavit of the petitioner dated 30.10.2019 contained false information inasmuch as besides the aforesaid five institutions, the petitioner has also worked on part time basis from 1.10.2008 to 30.4.2009 at C.V. Raman Senior Secondary School, Losal, District Sikar as well as Vidhyarthi Mitra from 1.3.2014 to 30.4.2014 at Government Senior Secondary School, Sabalpura, District Sikar. In his reply to the application dated 25.11.2019, the petitioner has admitted that apart from the part time job as mentioned in the additional affidavit dated 30.10.2019, he has also undertaken part time job during the period from 1.10.2008 to 30.4.2009 at C.V. Raman School, Losal and from 1.3.2014 to 30.4.2014 as Vidhyarthi Mitra in School at Sabalpura. He stated that these places escaped mention in the earlier affidavit dated (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (5 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] 30.10.2019 due to slip of mind, bona fide mistake and inadvertence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not only violated the directions dated 21.3.2018; but, also the order dated 30.10.2019 directing the respondents to pay him salary at par with his co-workers, which was being paid prior to the date of his removal and at least upto the time of his reinstatement. He has asserted that as the respondents have deliberately flouted the directions of this Court dated 21.3.2018 as well as dated 30.10.2019, suitable order may be passed against them.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that there has been no willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court vide its orders dated 21.3.2018 and 30.10.2019 as the petitioner has failed to furnish true and correct declaration/undertaking in terms of the directions of this Court. He further contended that for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal, contempt is not the proper remedy and the petitioner can get the order executed under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act of 1989 (for brevity- "the Act of 1989"). He, therefore, prayed that the contempt petition be dismissed.
9. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned AAG appearing for the respondent no.2, submitted that since neither the Government, nor its officers were parties to the proceedings, nor any direction has ever been issued to them, the petitioner has wrongly impleaded them as contemners, therefore, the contempt petition against them is not maintainable.
(Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM)
(6 of 8) [CCP-132/2019]
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. It is revealed from the record that the petitioner has not filed the undertaking in terms of the directions in the order dated 21.3.2018. In the first declaration submitted on 23.3.2018, the petitioner has claimed to have worked at two places only on part time basis i.e. with Smt. Kashibai Chhagan Lal Zaveri School Jaipur and Gram Bharti Vidhyapeeth Senior Secondary School, Kothyari, District Sikar which were already mentioned in the order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the Tribunal. The reply filed by the respondent no.1 to the contempt petition reveals that in addition to these two places, petitioner has also worked at three more places i.e. from 15.10.2008 to 16.12.2010 at Shri Dedraj Khaitan Higher Secondary School Losal, District Sikar, from 10.9.2012 to 16.5.2013 at Radhakrishan Maru Senior Secondary School, Sikar and from 16.10.2015 to 5.2.2016 at Shanti Niketan Senior Secondary School, Shiot Bady, Sikar before he has filed declaration dated 23.3.2018. The petitioner admitted, in his rejoinder to have worked at these three additional places. The respondent no.1 in its application dated 25.11.2019 again disclosed that in addition to the five places, the petitioner has worked at two more places namely; at C.V. Raman Senior Secondary School, Losal, District Sikar from 1.10.2008 to 30.4.2009 as well as Vidhyarthi Mitra from 1.3.2014 to 30.4.2014 at Government Senior Secondary School, Sabalpura, District Sikar which he deliberately did not disclose in any of his earlier declaration/undertaking. Thereafter, the petitioner in his reply to the application admitted to have worked at these two additional places also in addition to the five places and submitted that on (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (7 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] account of bona fide error and inadvertence, these places could not be mentioned in his affidavit dated 30.10.2019. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner has, time and again, submitted false declaration/undertaking with regard to his gainful employment during the intervening period as well as made false statement before the Court as is reflected from the order dated 30.10.2019. In these circumstances, the respondent no.1 cannot be held guilty of willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 21.3.2018, which required the respondent no.1 to pay the back wages, subject to the appellant furnishing an undertaking within 30 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of the order, otherwise, he was held not to be entitled for back wages.
12. Under the directions contained in the order dated 21.3.2018, the liability of the respondent no.1 to pay the back wages could accrue only after submission of the undertaking by the petitioner, which obviously, was required to be true and correct. Since, in the instant case, as is apparent from the aforesaid analysis of the material on record, the petitioner has submitted time and again declaration/undertaking with false and incorrect facts deliberately, the same cannot be reckoned as undertaking in terms of direction dated 21.3.2018 so as to held the respondent no.1 guilty of willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Since, rest of the respondent-contemners were not parties at any stage of the proceedings, nor any direction has, ever, been issued to them, they cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court. In these circumstances, the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedy for execution of the order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned (Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM) (8 of 8) [CCP-132/2019] Tribunal in accordance with provisions of the Act of 1989, if so advised.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices stand discharged.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
RAVI SHARMA /21
(Downloaded on 04/02/2020 at 09:02:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)