Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramlakhan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 CONC-1445-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CONC No. 1445 of 2020
(RAMLAKHAN SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 09-04-2026
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for the respondents/contemnors.
The present contempt petition is arising out of an order dated 04.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2850/2019, whereby the respondents were directed to extend the benefit of out of turn promotion in terms of Clause 70-A M.P. Police Regulation with all consequential benefits from the date when other identically situated police personnel were granted out of turn promotion.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though during the pendency of the present contempt petition, the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 21.06.2007, but the consequential benefits from the date when other identically situated police personnel were granted out of turn promotion has not been extended.
3. Learned counsel while referring to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 as well as the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by Principal Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Aruna Sharma in Contempt Petition No.774/2011 ; and the order dated 13.07.2010 in the matter of Dr. Kiran Shankar Bhatt Vs. Smt. Vijaya Shrivastava in Contempt Petition No.393/2010; had argued that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law and if a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM 2 CONC-1445-2020 remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. Herein case the order passed by this Court was never challenged by the other side and it had attained finality, therefore, they were required to pay all the consequential benefits accrued to the present petitioner.
4. It is further argued that when promotion is not granted due to fault of the department, an employee is entitled to salary for the intervening period and as this view has been taken by the Apex Court in its various decisions, the present respondents were not right in denying the benefits of back wages to the present petitioner, which is included in the consequential benefits that too from the date other identically situated police personnel were granted out of turn promotion. Thus, it was prayed that since the order has not been complied with in its entirety, the respondents/contemnors should be held contempt guilty and appropriately penalized.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors while referring to decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Atul Bajapai Vs. Mr. V.N. Ambade in the contempt petition (Civil) No.4869/2024 decided on 27.02.2026 and in the matter of Amarjeet Singh Vs. Jai Singh Gill and Ors. passed in C.O.C.P. No.109 of 2004 in C.O.C.P No.1378 of 2003 in C.W.P. No.12640/1999 decided on 06.05.2004 by Punjab and Haryana High Court and in the matter of Jhareswar Prasad Paul& Anr vs Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors reported in (2002)5 SCC 352 and in the matter of K. Anand Rao and others Vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019)13 SCC 34; has argued that if the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM 3 CONC-1445-2020 to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. It has also been argued that the coordinate Bench has already discussed the matter in detail and has concluded that back wages are not covered in the consequential benefits and thus had denied the relief therein, which is similar to the case herein, therefore, the contempt petition being devoid of merits is required to be dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to establish his claim of arrears of salary from the date of his promotion in appropriate proceedings.
6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the arguments and judgments cited, this Court finds that the coordinate Bench of this Court while discussing the issue as to whether back wages are included in the expression 'all consequential benefits' has come to a conclusion that back wages are not covered in the expression 'all consequential benefits' and has consequently denied the relief in contempt proceedings.
7. However, the issue involved in the aforesaid contempt petition was non compliance of the order of extending the consequential benefits of the promotional post w.e.f. his alleged entitlement. The question posed there didn't involve the issue with regard to payment of consequential benefits from the date when other identically situated persons were granted promotion.
8. According to this Court, if there would not have been direction of this Court in the order impugned herein for extending the consequential benefits w.e.f. the date when other identically situated persons were granted promotion, the said order would have been squarely applied but as in the present case since the directions are somewhat different, the said order passed by coordinate Bench would not come to rescue of the respondents/contemnors.
9. So far as the order passed by the Apex Court in the matter of K. Anand Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM 4 CONC-1445-2020 Rao and others Vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others (supra) as relied by the respondents/contemnors is concerned, therein though the issue as to whether consequential benefits would include salary of the wages was putfourth for consideration, but in specific terms was not answered, rather it was held that the consequential benefits would not entitled to concerned employees anything greater than what was contemplated in the policy documents issued by State Government as the matter therein, as such arguments were not advanced from this standpoint and therefore, it was held that it would be difficult in absence of any discussion that the Courts below had faulted of granting something which was in excess of what was contemplated in the various policies culminating in GO dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the question therein was limited to the answer therein was limited to the policies of State Government and the said consideration/question as posed before this Court was not an issue before the Apex Court, therefore, same is also not applicable.
10. So far as the analogy laid down by the Apex Court in the matter o f Jhareswar Prasad Paul& Anr vs Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors (supra) is concerned, this Court is in full agreement that if a judgement or the order does not contained specific directions regarding the matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court to recourse of the matter and clarify the facts, but according to this Court the order of compliance which is sought herein is not ambiguous in any terms, there is specific direction of this Court for the respondents/contemnors to extend the benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date when other identically situated police personnel were granted out of turn promotion, which would include the actual monetary benefits Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM 5 CONC-1445-2020 which shall be extended to the similarly situated police personnel.
11. So far as the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid period, therefore, he is not entitled for wages/salary is concerned, the said argument has not force, as it was not the petitioner who was responsible for not having worked w.e.f. 21.06.2007, but it was due to the fault on the part of the respondents/State/contemnors that he could not work on the post of promotion.
12. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors that since it is not the finding of this Court that since the respondents have acted arbitrarily and had not allowed the petitioner to work on the post of his promotion or was not promoted, the benefit of payment of salary from the date of his promotion, which is a part of consequential benefits cannot be extended has also no force, as due to the very illegal approach on behalf of respondent/State, this Court was constrained to observe in para 11 that since the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post inspite of the specific finding for granting out of turn promotion, this Court is directing the authorities to promote the petitioner instead of relegating the matter back for consideration, which itself goes to show that this Court has reposed no faith upon the respondents to re- adjudicate the matter, as they had constantly ignored and disobeyed the directions of this Court.
13. Since a part compliance of the order has been made, as a last indulgence, four weeks' further time is granted to the respondents/contemnors to comply with the other part of the order impugned with regard to extending the consequential benefits as has been extended to similarly situated police personnel.
14. In case on or before the next date of hearing, the compliance is not made, then the petition shall be heard on framing of charge and on same day after Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM 6 CONC-1445-2020 giving opportunity of reply/response, shall pass final order.
15. It is also observe that in case compliance is not made on or before the next date of hearing, all the respondents/contemnor shall remain personally present before this Court.
16. List this case after four weeks.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/16/2026 12:01:22 PM