Dismissed

Suresh Dutt Joshi v. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2023WCP/670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition seeking punishment for non-compliance with a High Court order for retirement dues, the single judge held that substantial compliance occurred when the State institution released funds to the school, which then distributed them to employees.

What did the court decide?

Discharge of notices, dropping of contempt proceedings, and disposal of pending applications.

Suresh Dutt Joshi Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 670/2022

¶4

Suresh Dutt Joshi S/o Shri Dev Dutt Joshi, Aged About 72 Years, Joshi Building, Veer Mohalla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Secretary, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Shri Kana Ram, Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶9

Shri Prem Chand Sankhla, Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Shri Amrit Lal, District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Shri Anand Purohit, Secretary, Sri Sumer Pushtikar Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Shri Shanti Prasad Harsh, Secretary, Sri Pushtikar Education Trust, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶13

Shri Mahesh Bora, Sri Pushtikar Education Trust Association, Jodhpur.

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
	Mr. Deepak Bora

¶17

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶18

Judgment

¶19

Reserved on 07/12/2023 Pronounced on 20/12/2023

¶20

This contempt petition has been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

¶21

“It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Contempt Petition of the petitioner may kindly be

(2 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

allowed and the respondent-contemnors may kindly be punished as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful contempt of the order of this Hon’ble High Court dated 26.11.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10755/2016 titled as “Suresh Dutt Joshi V/s State & Ors.

¶26

Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶27

Brief facts as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing no. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10755/2016 before this Hon’ble Court seeking, amongst others, a direction to the respondent-School to make payment of the retiral dues and leave encashment to the petitioner.

¶28

2.1. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed an order dated 26.11.2021, wherein the aforesaid petition was allowed with certain directions to make retirement dues and leave encashment dues to the petitioner within a period of three months. However, as per the petitioner, even after passing of four months, the said payment was not made and the order dated 26.11.2021 was not complied with. Even a legal notice dated 06.03.2022 was sent to the respondents but no heed was paid to the same. Thus the present contempt petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though this Hon’ble Court had passed the order dated 26.11.2021 yet the respondents had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the said order.

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

(3 of 7)

3.1. It was further submitted that even after sending a legal notice to all the respondents yet no reply was given by the respondents to the same. In furtherance, it was submitted that the necessary and correct amount had not been paid to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶34

3.2. It was also submitted that the petition bearing no. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10755/2016 had been decided in light of the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Satya Narayan Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9026/2013 , decided on 23.01.2014) and Dr.(Miss) Urmila Singhvi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3020/2007 , decided on 17.11.2011 ) by Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and thus also interest for delayed payment should have been given by the respondents to the petitioner.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 & 8, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid petition, the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Jodhpur issued a communication dated 10.05.2022 to the Secretary of respondentSchool requesting to provide them with due drawn statement, service records, requisite record, documents of the added employees, subsequent to which 15 days were sought by the respondent-Institution to furnish the same.

¶36

4.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Jodhpur after receiving the requisite

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

(4 of 7)

information, checked the calculations and due drawn statement and records and thereafter sent the complete calculation of each added employee along with requisite record of the institution along with a consolidated chart of calculations showing payment of each added employee for grant in aid in different heads vide communication dated 21.06.2022, and the same showcased a total amount of 80% grant for the petitioner to be Rs. 4,36,773/-. 4.2. It was also submitted that the Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner went through the complete calculation of different grant in aid cases and then sent the record to Senior Joint Legal Remembrancer, Education (Legal Section) Department, Rajasthan, Jodhpur vide communication dated 28.06.2022 wherein at serial no.1 the name of the respondent institution was reflected, showcasing a total amount of Rs 1,62,00,609/- to be paid to the respondent institution.

¶41

4.3. In furtherance, it was submitted that on 06.07.2022, the Finance Department approved the case for grant in aid and the same was communicated to the Director, Secondary Education Department, whereafter the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education Department, Jodhpur passed an office order dated 06.07.2022 sanctioning an amount of Rs.1,62,00,609/- to the respondent institution and thereafter the said amount was credited to the bank account of the respondent institution, thus the respondent-State had already made due compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents no. 5 to 7 submitted that in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court, a

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

(5 of 7)

communication dated 28.05.2016 was sent to the State Government whereafter the amount was received and the same was immediately released to the concerned persons including the present petitioner.

¶47

5.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the petitioner’s claim for interest on the delayed payment does not hold good, as both the orders dated 26.11.2021 as well as the order passed in Satya Narayan Sharma (supra) nowhere mentions interest with regard to delayed payment.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court had passed an order dated 26.11.2021 in the aforementioned writ petition wherein the petitioner who was appointed as a Teacher, after retirement, did not receive his retrial benefits and vide order dated 26.11.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court allowed the petitioner’s claim whereafter the petitioner has come before this Court raising the issue of noncompliance of the said order and interest on delayed payment.

¶49

This Court further observes that the Finance Department approved the amount of Rs. 1,62,00,609/- whereafter the same was communicated to the Director, Secondary Education Department and on the same date an office order was passed by the Financial Advisor, District Education Officer, Rajasthan, communicating to all concerned officers at District Level for release of payment of grant in aid to the concerned institutions

(6 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

after correct calculations only, so that more than the requisite amount is not released.

¶54

This Court also observes that a chart was also prepared by the concerned respondent authority, showcasing the sanctioned amount payable by the State Government to all 23 different institutions of the State and at Serial no. 1 the respondent institution is present with the amount of Rs.1,62,00,609/- in the column of amount payable and further the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education Department, Jodhpur passed payment approval order dated 06.07.2022 in favour of the respondent institution whereafter the contingent bills (outer sheet and inner sheet) clearly showcase the aforesaid amount being credited to the account of the respondent institution.

¶55

This Court further observes that as far as the question of interest on the delayed payment is concerned, this Court is conscious of the order dated 26.11.2021 wherein this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration the orders passed in both the cases i.e. Satya Narayan Sharma (supra) and Dr. (Miss) Urmila Singhvi (supra) and passed the order dated 26.11.2011; it is evident that no specific directions in the present case have been issued by the Hon’ble Court with regard to payment of interest on the delayed payment; had there been any intention to do so, the same would have been explicitly mentioned in the said order itself. In a case of contempt, the demonstration of noncompliance has to be made in a very formidable manner.

¶56

It is clear that the respondent-State released the amount of Rs. 1,62,00,609/- in favour of the respondent institution so that

(7 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JD:43021]

[WCP-670/2022]

the same could be paid to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons; as is evident from the various communications and the contingent bill, the same was released by the respondent institution to the employees and clearly substantial compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 has been made on part of the respondents.

¶61

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to continue the present contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶62

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed . The notices issued stand discharged and the contempt proceedings against the respondents are dropped. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶63

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶64

SKant/-

Suresh Dutt Joshi v. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Dutt Joshi v. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sunder Lal

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Lal Singh

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Renu Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan