ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND ORS. versus HIRAK GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 08-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND ORS. 
v. 
>--
HIRAK GHQSH AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2002. 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, Jf!71: Section 2(b)-Power under the Act-
Exercise of-It should be exercised sparingly and in the larger interest of 
c Society with utmost care and caution-Wiful dis-obedience of order would 
.,, 
amount to contempt. 
Civil Service Personnel-Liability to comply with the order of the Court-
It is not desirable to feign ignorance when the directions of the Court stands 
crystal clear in the Judgment-Hence Respondents guilty of contempt. 
D 
Petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Assistants in non-govt. 
affiliated colleges in West Bengal. In addition to their normal duties, they have 
been imparting instructions to the students and performing demonstration 
work including preparation of the lesson units in the practical classes. They 
were being treated as teaching staff and accordingly pay and allowances had 
E been paid to them until the issuance of the State Government Order in the 
Year 1969, according to which they were treated as non-teaching staff. Against 
the said order of the Government, representations were made by the 
petitioners but to no effect. Subsequently in 1983, the State Government 
redesignated the post of Laboratory Assistants as 'Laboratory Instructors' 
......... 
F 
by issuing a notification wherein it was clarified that there would be no 
enhancement of pay and their status as non-teaching staff would remain 
unchanged. However, the Laboratory Assistants working in Government 
Colleges have been given the status and designation of Demonstrators and 
treated as teaching staff. 
G 
Writ Petitions were filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to treat the 
petitioners as teaching staff as defined in the University Act and to give them 
-y 
scale of pay at par with Physical Instructions. Single Judge of.the High Court 
allowed the writ petitions. In appeal by the State Government, Division Bench 
confirmed the Judgment of Single Judge. Hence State Government preferred 
special leave petition, and the Court by its order dated 26.7.1984 upheld the 
H 
346 
ANIL RATAN SARKAR v. HIRAK GHOSH 
347 
finding of the Single Judge with slight modification regarding effective date A 
-\ 
for implementation of revised pay scale and also for payment of arrears. 
Subsequently, State Government in purported compliance with the 
order of this Court issued a Circular conferring teaching status on the 
Laboratory Instructors and their pay scale was also revised but not in 
accordance with the order of the Court. Aggrieved, petitioners challenged the B 
circular by filing a writ petition. Single Judge allowed it and quashed the 
Circular. However, Division Bench upheld the Circular. On a Special Leave 
Petition preferred by the petitioners, this Court restored the order of the Single 
Judge. But the State Government did not comply with the order inspite of 
repeated requests by the petitioners. Hence these contempt Petitions. 
C 
It was contended for the Petitioners that fairness on the part of 
respondent was totally absent inspite of three final rounds of litigation upto 
this Court; and that the conduct of the respondents in not complying with 
the order of the Court was deliberate, perverse and in grossest violation of 
the order of this Court. Finding the Respondents guilty of Contempt, the D 
Court. 
HELD: I.I. Powers under the Contempt of Courts Act should be 
exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in 
the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice 
delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the E 
Act shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists no 
doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bonafide. [354-E-F) 
Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Anr., [2000] 7 SCC 530 and Mrityunjoy 
Das Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors., [2001] 3 SCC 739, relied on. 
1.2. Mere disobedience of an order may llot be sufficient to amount to 
a "Civil Contemptfl, the element of willingness is an indispensible requirement 
to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and when two 
interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains 
to one such interpretation, the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise 
contumacious in nature. (354-G-H) 
2.1. It is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a senior Civil Ser

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.