Dismissed

V K Gaur v. P K Dev and Others

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2013CCP/310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a D.B. Contempt Petition alleging wilful non-compliance with a previous judgment granting the petitioner pension and promotion benefits. The Bench held that while actions were taken for compliance, the accusation of deliberate disobedience could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed. The accusation of wilful and deliberate disobedience of court directions cannot be sustained.

V K Gaur Vs P K Dev and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: ORDER ::

¶4

D.B. CIVIL MISC.CONTEMPT PETITION No.310/ 2011

¶5

V.K.Gaur Vs. Shri P.K.Dev & Ors.

¶6

Date of Order : 11.07.2013

¶7

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr.M.M.Mehrishi for the petitioner. Ms.Raj Sharma, Additional Government Counsel & Mr.Amit Ojha on behalf of

¶9

Mr.Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the respondents.

¶10

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶11

Heard Mr.M.M.Mehrishi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Raj Sharma, learned Additional Government Counsel and Mr.Amit Ojha on behalf of Mr.Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents.

¶12

An imputation of deliberate non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.352/ 2005, has been made by filing the instant contempt petition. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged in the writ petition, the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect as a disciplinary measure, had filed the aforementioned appeal. By the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the appeal was allowed with the following operative directions:-

¶13

¶14

“ In view of the above discussion, present appeal succeeds and accordingly impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2005 is set-aside. Consequently, impugned order of penalty dated 24.10.1992 and order dated 17.5.1994 passed by the appellate authority, are quashed and set aside. Appellant is held entitled to all the consequential benefits.

¶15

Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date of copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.

¶16

In the facts of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.”

¶17

As would be evident from the quoted text, thereby the appellant was held entitled to all consequential benefits and the respondents were granted three months' time for compliance of the judgment so rendered. The petitioner is back to this Court with the instant application complaining that though in terms of the minor penalty, he had suffered supersession in the matter of promotion to senior scale and selection scale of the Rajasthan Police Service as well as super-time scale in the Rajasthan Police Service and also to the Indian Police Service ( hereafter referred to as 'IPS' ), and further, in terms of the above-referred judgment, though the respondents were obliged in law to extend to him the above benefits, they did not do so, inspite of the fact that they were fully aware of the steps to be taken and also the time frame therefor. The respondent No.2, in his reply, has pleaded in substance that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, a review DPC was held on 25.10.2011, and that therefore, the accusation of deliberate

¶18

¶19

non-compliance of the directions of this Court is wholly untrue. This respondent, by an additional affidavit, has also brought on record the fact that in furtherance of the process of compliance of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has by its letter dated 3.8.2012 forwarded the name of the petitioner to the Union Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as 'UPSC') with regard to his promotion to the Indian Police Service. Copy of the letter has also been annexed to the said affidavit. By an interim application being IA No.5742/ 2013, the petitioner has asserted that after the pronouncement of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the State Government by order dated 1.11.2011, revised the orders in respect of his promotion to the senior, selection and super-time scales and placed him above Shri Surendra Kumar in the super-time scale. He however, alleged that no action has been taken to convene the review DPC for consideration of his case for promotion to the IPS. He alleged that the order dated 1.11.2011 notwithstanding, the respondents again revised the promotion orders and the seniority of the petitioner by placing him below Shri Surendra Kumar in the super-time scale, which according to him was impermissible as the latter was junior to him. The petitioner filed another interim application being IA No.6661/ 20213 for a direction to the respondents to convene DPC for consideration of his case for promotion to the IPS vis-a-vis the vacancies for the year(s) in which his juniors had been so promoted. He alleged as well that there was a move to consider the case of one Shri Mahipal Singh junior to him for

¶20

¶21

such promotion to the IPS. In response thereto, the respondent No.2, in his reply, reiterated that the case of the petitioner had already been forwarded to the UPSC for necessary action with regard to his promotion to the IPS. That the confidential records of the petitioner with regard to the said process had already been forwarded by the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan to the UPSC, has also been stated. That the related process with regard to the fixation of inter se seniority of the petitioner is being delayed as the issue pertaining thereto is subjudice in Court, has been stated as well.

¶22

Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that the facts of the case demonstrate in unequivocal terms that the respondents are guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 rendered in the aforementioned special appeal. Ms.Sharma has argued to the contrary. According to her, the pleaded assertions of the respondent No.2, indicate in unequivocal terms that necessary and immediate steps, in compliance of the decision of this Court, have been taken.

¶23

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded averments and the documents in support thereof, we are of the view that the imputation of wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the directions of this Court as embodied in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, cannot be sustained. It is a petition alleging contempt by conscious violation of an order of a court of law, and ought not to be converted into an execution proceeding by

¶24

¶25

examining the pros and cons of the process that ensues to adjudge the legality or otherwise of the decisions, if taken.

¶26

On a broad consideration of the pleadings of the respondent No.2, we are inclined to conclude that it is not a case where the respondents have either not acted at all in compliance of the directions of this Court or had deliberately delayed the process. The decisions taken while undertaking the exercise by the respondents, if not acceptable to the petitioner, it is open for him to assail the same in an appropriate proceeding as those give rise to fresh cause of action. True it is that the respondents are bound in law to comply with the directions of this Court, but having regard to the nature of the proceedings in hand, to reiterate, wilful and deliberate inaction or disobedience thereof by them, is not discernible.

¶27

This petition is therefore, closed. This determination notwithstanding, it would be open to the petitioner to avail the other remedies contemplated in law against the decisions claimed to have been taken by the respondents in compliance of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶29

Skant/ -

¶30

Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed.

¶31

Shashi Kant Gaur , PA

V K Gaur v. P K Dev and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V K Gaur v. P K Dev and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girdhari and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Megha Acharya Vs Secretary R P S C Ajmer

Vimal Soni and Ors. Vs State Law Departmentand Anr.

Mansarovar Nagrik Vikas Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amit Vyas Vs Secretary R P S C Ajmer

R S R T C Jaipur andANR Vs Smt Mali Devi