DR.PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH v. VEER KUNWAR SINGH & Ors.

clear direction was given by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 12.6.2006 to ventilate his grievance as with regard to the aforementioned claims of retiral dues made in the writ application, the same has not been redressed in full by the opposite parties and the order of this Court has thus been not complied till date. The Counsel in this regard has drawn of this Court towards his claim as explained in Annexure-2 to this which in his submission were directed to be disposed of by making full payment. Annexure-2 reads as follows:- “ Total Arrear of Dr. P.K. Singh Retd. Reader and Head, Deptt. of Zoology

01. Arrear Pension (Aug. 2005 to 1,80,000=00 Aug. 2006) P.F. in A/c no. 100104 1,82,000=00 C.G.I. Gratuity Leave Encashment 19,460=00 3,50,000=00 2,55,000=00 Arrear claim of salary due to 89,273=00 promotion P.F. (1991-1997) P.F. Loan P.F. not deposited D.A. in P.F. H.R.A. Diff. of D.A. U.G.C. Diff. 42,863=00 12,564=00 35,111=00 18,070=00 14,734=00 46,264=00 19,100=00

13. (01.01.86 to 31.01.96)

14. U.G.C. Diff. (01.01.96 to 31.07.2005) 2,82,365=00 April 2000 – June 2001 8,70,104=00 July 2001 – July 2005 2,81,779=00 3

15. Salary of Jan. – Feb. 2000 60,000=00 ” Counsel the opposite parties have however seriously contested the aforementioned stand of the Counsel for the petitioner and they submit that the aforementioned claims were not subject matter of the connected writ petition and in fact the claim of the petitioner as raised in the writ application has been already disposed of. In this context, they have placed their reliance on statement in paragraph no.2 of the contempt application, which reads as follows:- “2. That the petitioner who was a Reader and Head of the Department of Zoology, S.P.Jain College, Sasaram, Rohtas, a constituent unit of Veer Kunwar Singh University had filed the aforesaid writ application for a direction/order to pay the petitioner on his superannuation on 31.07.2005 following dues:- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Provident Fund Rs. 1,82,000/- approx Group Fund contributed Rs. 19,460/- approx by petitioner without interest Leave Incashment Rs. 2,55,000/- approx Gratuity Rs. 3,50,000/- approx Arrear of pension Rs. 1,80,000/- approx (Aug-05 to Aug-2006) and further for fixing the pension of the petitioner as well as interest accrued due to late payment and admitted dues in various heads.” It has thus been submitted by the Counsels for the opposite parties that when each of the aforementioned claim as originally raised in the writ application have been 4 disposed of on merit, the allegation of non-compliance of the order of this Court by the Counsel for the petitioner must be rejected. In this regard, they have also placed their reliance on paragraph no.4 of their show-cause reply, which reads as follows:- “4. That as soon as the authority of the University came to learn about the order dated 12.06.2006, the claim of the petitioner had been decided and the following payments have been given to the petitioner :- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Pension of the petitioner has been fixed as Rs. 8399+D.A. Provident Fund amount Rs. 1,84,710/- has been given. Group Insurance amount Rs. 59,241/- has been given. Gratuity amount Rs. 1,00,000/- has been given to the petitioner out of Rs. 3,35,234/- as paid to the other retired persons. As soon as the fund is made available by the government rest amount Rs. 2,35,234/- will be paid to the petitioner. (v) Leave salary for 180 days amounting to Rs. 1,74,834/- has already been paid to the petitioner as paid the other retired employees. (vi) As per fund made available by government 45% arrears of U.G.C. Pay Scale has been given to the petitioner like other retired persons. As soon as necessary fund is made available by the government rest 55% amount will be given.” In the opinion of this Court, the stand of the opposite 5 parties seem to be correct. It has to be noted that there is no denial by the petitioner to the aforesaid statement in the show-cause reply of the opposite parties and in fact the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the show-cause of the opposite parties. Consequently, it must be held that the order of this Court dated 12.6.2006 has been complied on behalf of the petitioner. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite parties by not making full and final payment of the amount mentioned in Annexure-2 the contempt application have disobeyed the order of this Court is fit to be rejected because Annexure-2 was not the subject matter of the writ application nor even the petitioner had pressed such claim when he had filed a representation in the University on

26.6.2006 while enclosing the order of the Court dated

12.6.2006. To that extent, it would be relevant to quote the wordings of the aforesaid representation as contained in Annexure-3 to the contempt application. “I am enclosing hereunder a copy of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 656/2006, dated 12.06.2006. Since I retired in the year 2005 itself kindly expedite the matter and do the needful.” Thus from the aforementioned representation, it is absolutely clear that the claim that was sought to be pressed by the petitioner at best could be referable to one which was in the writ application and which has also now been correctly 6 mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the contempt application. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that has claim in Annexure-2 was part of his representation as contained in Annexure-3 is to be noted for its being rejected inasmuch as neither the same formed part of his aforesaid representation nor was even subject matter of the writ application. This being the factual position, the petitioner cannot be allowed to expand his claim beyond the scope of the writ application. This Court therefore in its contempt jurisdiction has to only examine as to whether the earlier order of the Court has been complied or not? The contention of Counsel of the petitioner that the order of this Court has not been complied and therefore this Court should again direct the opposite parties to decide the claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 and further they should be asked to make payment of the admitted amounts must be and is hereby rejected inasmuch as this Court in contempt matter has to only see whether the orders have been effectively complied or not. In view of the fact that this Court had only directed in its earlier order dated 12.6.2006 to decide the claim of retiral dues of the petitioner as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the contempt application which alone was the subject matter of the writ application, this Court now cannot expand this contempt application beyond those five relief specially when 7 it has found that for those five claims retirement dues for which writ application was filed, admittedly has been decided as would become clear from paragraph no.4 of the show- cause reply filed by the Registrar of the University. Reference in this connection may be to the following passage of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Calcutta High Court, in the case of Ranju Gopal Mukherjee Vs. Rampada Mahaldar reported in 1991(II) CHN 174 where this aspect was summarized in the following words:- “A cursory glance at the preamble to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 („Act‟ for short) and the provisions thereof makes it abundantly clear that the Act has been brought in the statute book to define and limit the powers of certain Courts, including the High Courts, to punish for Contempt for Courts and it has laid down the procedure for exercise of such powers. „Contempt of Court‟ has been defined under section 2(a) of the Act to mean „Civil Contempt‟ or „Criminal Contempt‟ and „Civil Contempt‟ has been defined under section 2(b) of the Act to mean willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court‟. If, therefore, it is alleged before the High Court that a person has willfully violated its order, it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found true, it can punish the offenders for having committed „Civil Contempt‟ and if need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement and execution of the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercising its powers under the Act in respect of Civil Contempt, the Court‟s enquiry is limited to the question whether its order has been willfully disobeyed or not. While exercising its power under the Act, it is therefore not open to the Court 8 to pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which its contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When judged in the context of the above principles there is no escape from the conclusion that the learned Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in passing the order under appeal. By the order disposing of the writ petition, the learned Judge had directed the Board to go into the „question of grant of recognition‟ and to pass an order. In compliance with the above direction, the Board might have, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable to them refused recognition or granted conditional recognition but in view of the impugned order, the Board is bound to grant unconditional recognition. That necessarily means that the writ petitioners have, in the contempt jurisdiction got more relief than what they got in the writ jurisdiction, even though the former jurisdiction was invoked – and could be invoked – for alleged willful disobedience of the order passed latter jurisdiction.” The aforesaid view has since been also reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Sayeed Zaffar Mahdi reported in 1997 (9) SCC 640 holding that in a contempt application it is not open to the Court to enlarge the scope of original petition while making orders on contempt petition. Judged in this background, in the facts of the present case, there being no such issue for deciding any other claim much less payment of any amount either in the writ application or in the order of this Court as with regard to the payment claimed in Annexure-2 to this contempt application it must be held that the order of this Court dated 12.6.2006 9 cannot be expanded so as to entertain the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to such of the claims which did not form part of the connected writ application. The opposite parties in fact have substantially complied the order of this Court dated 12.6.2006 inasmuch as while deciding the claim of the petitioner as directed by this Court have made payment of admitted amount of Gratuity, G.P.F., Leave Encashment and Group Insurance and it has been also explained that they have made such payment to the petitioner at par with the other retired employees of the University and balance amount if any would be paid also to the petitioner when funds for the same would be made available by the State Government for its paid to all such similarly situated retired persons of the University, this Court cannot hold that the opposite parties are still in contempt. Accordingly, the submission on behalf of the opposite parties as with regard to the compliance of the order of this Court must be and is hereby accepted. At this stage the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given liberty to move this Court for payment of amount as contained in Annexure-2 to this application. In the opinion of this Court, no fresh order for this purpose is required in view of the last part of the earlier order of this Court dated 12.6.2006 wherein it was clearly observed that it would be open for the petitioner to move this 10 Court for further directions. Consequently, there is no merit in this contempt petition and the same must be and is hereby dismissed. The personal appearance of the Registrar of the University and the Principal of the College is also dispensed with. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)