This common order dismisses six contempt cases filed by APSRTC employees alleging violation of a writ order regarding pay scales and seniority. The court held that the delay in compliance was administrative and not wilful, preventing the merits of the pay scale dispute from being adjudicated in contempl &&& proceedings.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH THURSDAY THIS THE THIRTEENTH AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE
C.C.Nos. 369, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 OF 2009
Between:
C.C.No.369 of 2009 R.Srinivas Rao …Petitioner A N D P.Satyanarayana, The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tandur Depot R.R.Districtand Others. …Respondents. C.C.No.370 of 2009
Between: J. Bapuji …Petitioner A N D J. Kavitha and Others …Respondents
C.C.No. 371 of 2009
Between: Md. Hussainmiya …Petitioner A N D P.Satyanarayana and others …Respondents
C.C.No. 372 of 2009
Between:
| Md. Mahmood …Petitioner |
|---|
| A N D |
| Krishnamurthy and Others …Respondents |
C.C.No. 373 OF 2009
Between: K. Janaki Ramaiah. …petitioner A N D P. Satyanarayana and Others …Respondents
C.C.No. 374 OF 2009
Between:
K. Brahmojee. …petitioner A N D S.Suresh Kumar and Others …Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
C.C.Nos. 369, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 OF 2009
COMMON ORDER
These batch of contempt cases are filed complaining that the respondents herein have violated the common order passed by this Court on 30th September, 2008 in W.P.No. 20649 of 2001 and batch. Therefore, these batch contempt cases can be disposed of under this common order.
2. W.P.Nos. 20649 of 2000, 20734 of 2000, 20748 of 2000 and 13855 of 2001 have been filed by the petitioners therein seeking the
following relief:
“Petitioners prayed that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents herein to fix the pay scale for the 1st , 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein on par with the person one namely Sabuddin Conductor E. 271418 who is working present at Tandur Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C. R.R. District from the date of his appointment i.e. with effect from 1991 and there is no fault on the part of the 1st , 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein and to pay the difference of arrears on increments on par with Sabauddin conductor who worked along with these petitioners prior to nationalisation of the route of private service by the A.P.S.R.T.C. and with all other service benefits”.
3. In all the three writ petitions the petitioners are conductor and as far as writ petition No. 20748 of 2000 is concerned, the petitioner is a driver and in respect of all the writ petitions the relief sought for is similar one.
4. By order dated 30th September, 2008 this Court disposed of the writ petitions by common order. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court reads as hereunder:
“The petitioners are given liberty to make appropriate representation giving all the particulars with reference to the service of the persons with whom they want to compare with reference to the scales and seniority and etc., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on filing such representation, two months thereafter, the respondent Corporation is directed to dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.”
Complaining that the above direction is violated by the respondents, these batch of contempt cases are filed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceeding has been issued beyond the time stipulated by this Court in its order. He further submits that the proceeding has been issued by the respondents, mechanically without application of mind and also to over come the contempt cases pending in this Court. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for APSRTC submits that proceedings No. Supdt/785 (97)/2000.RR, dated 28-3-2009 issued by the Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Depot in compliance of direction given by this Court. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for APSRTC fairly conceded that there is delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the proceeding in complying the orders passed by this Court. However, he submits that the delay is caused due to the reason that the petitioners were working at different place and their services
particulars are to be called from various places, for which time was consumed and in the meanwhile delay occurred and the said delay is only administrative in nature, but not intentional. Therefore, he submits that such delay may be condoned.
8. Whether the impugned order is properly complied with or not would constitute a separate cause of action, but it may not be appropriate to consider the validity of the same in the contempt proceeding. Learned standing counsel for the APSRTC submits that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying the orders passed by this Court. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others[1] . He further submits that contempt cases are liable to be dismissed. 9. The apex Court while dealing with contempt matter observed at para 6 as hereunder:
“The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2- 7-1991. Subsequently, promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the
Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other word, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench”.
10. In the instant case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to passing of the impugned order, but the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the respondent Corporation is a mechanical order and without application of mind. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the respondents gave due regard to the orders of this Court and issued proceeding dated 28-3-2009.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order impugned in these contempt cases is mechanical order or non-application of the mind, would constitute a fresh cause of action and this Court cannot decide the same in the
Contempt case. The scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Act is very limited to see whether the respondents have committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court, if so, whether it is wilful in nature or not. In the instant case on hand, the petitioners were given liberty to make a representation giving their service particulars and seek benefits on par with Sabuddin. They made representation and after due consideration their representations have been considered and proceeding dated 28-3-2009 has been issued. Learned standing counsel had explained the reasons for delay that occurred in passing the proceeding by the respondent Corporation. I am of the view that such reasons given by the learned standing counsel is acceptable as far as delay is concerned, the delay can be condoned.
12. Having regard to the judgment of the apex Court cited supra and having regard to the stand taken by the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation with regard to delay, I do not see any reason to come to the conclusion that there is wilful default on the part of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the contempt cases are liable to be dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that the petitioners are always at liberty to question the validity of the proceeding dated 28-3-2009 in fresh writ proceeding.
13. Accordingly, the contempt cases are dismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________ Justice G. Chandraiah 13th August, 2009. KM
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
C.C.Nos. 369, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 OF 2009
1 3 th August, 2009.
[1] (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 291
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint of mechanical compliance without application of mind in the pay scale matter constitutes wilful disobedience warranting dismissal of the contempt petition or a fresh cause of act
Whether delay in issuing proceedings due to administrative reasons constitutes wilful default by the respondents in complying with the earlier court order.
R. Srinivas Rao
J. Bapuji
Md. Hussainmiya
Md. Mahmood
K. Janaki Ramaiah
K. Brahmojee
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
