In this civil contempt petition, the court addressed allegations of non-compliance with an order to examine a petitioner's representation. The court held that non-payment of financial benefits constitutes a fresh cause of action and does not amount to contempt, discharging the petition.
Contempt petition dismissed; notices discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Goverdhan Lal Gupta Vs. Mr. Ramlubhaya & Others (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.565/2012)
November 05, 2014.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Vijay Pathak, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, AAG with Mr. M. Goswami, on behalf of respondents.
BY THE COURT :
Non compliance with the order dated 30-8-2011 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7965/2011 has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereunder this court directed that on a representation being filed by the petitioner ventilating his grievance, the competent authority was to examine the same and pass a speaking order thereon within three months of receipt thereof.
Counsel submits that a representation ventilating his grievance was made by the petitioner. The said representation was decided by the respondents vide order dated 22-2-2013. The petitioner was appointed as Store Munshi on semi permanent basis effective 23-5-1983 and given financial benefits effective 15-4-2007. But the actual financial benefits have not been paid.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the representation made by the petitioner appears to have been wrongly decided and the department is in the process of reconsidering the
2
matter. Learned AAG in the alternative submits that in any event the order dated 30-8-2011 passed by this court was limited to consideration of the
representation. The same has been considered. Alleged non payment of monetary benefits granted, cannot constitute contempt of court. No such direction is evident from the court's order. Legal right and contempt are separate and distinct concepts. It is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved of non payment of actual benefits effective 15-4-2007, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the relief to which he claims
to be entitled to.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature entailing willful default of specific direction/s issued by the court. In the instant case the direction issued by this court on 30-8-2011 was to consider the petitioner's representation. That has been done albeit not to the petitioner's full satisfaction. The learned Additional Advocate General states that the said order is under reconsideration and potential withdrawal and variation to the petitioner's prejudice.
Be as it may, it is apparent that there were no direction to make payment in the event of petitioner's representation being allowed—even though payment in terms of the order passed on consideration of the representation may be a logical next step. Non payment of monetary benefits is thus a fresh cause of action, but cannot constitute contempt of the court's order. Aside of aforesaid, learned Additional Advocate General
3
has submitted that the petitioner's representation has been wrongly decided and the same is in process of review and variation.
In the overall facts of the case, I find no force in the contempt petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved of non payment of monetary benefits effective 15-4-2007 in spite of the order dated 22-2-2013, the petitioner would be at liberty to take his remedy available in law. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/
4
All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
Goverdhan Lal Gupta
Mr. Ramlubhaya
Others
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
