JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL AND ANR. versus TARAK NATH GANGULY AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 08-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
"' ' 
JHARESW AR PRASAD PAUL AND ANR. 
A 
TARAK NATH GANGULY AND ORS. 
MAY 08, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Conle1111Jt of L~ourls , 1c:. I 97 I-Section 2 (b)--Conten1pt jurisdiction-
Exercise and scope o.l--Hc/d, Court should co1?fine to question regarding any 
deliberate disobedience in con1plying 1vilh direction in the judg1nent or order C 
of court and the contu111acious conduct o.f parties-On facts, f!igh Court in 
exercise of conte111pl jurisdiction issuing certain directions l1'hen non-
co111plia11ce of order alleged did not contain such directions-Hence order of 
High Court set aside. 
Respondents-Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors sought benefits of D 
promotion and financial benefits being granted to Lower Division Clerk 
(LDC) in terms of a Government Order since the work they have been 
doing were similar to those of LDCs. Single Judge of High Court disposed 
E 
of the petition. Division Bench granted benefits to the respondents-Clerk-
cum-Cash Collei:tors, in ter1ns of the Government Order. Thereafter, State 
extended the benefit of previous Govern1nent Order to the respondents-
Clerk-cum-Cash Collector. Respondents and other Clerk-cum-Cash 
Collectors \\'Crc given promotion. Ho\vevcr, respondents-Clerk-cum-Cash 
Collectors filed application alleging that the appellants failed to comply 
with the order of Division Bench of High Court in its entirety. Court held 
that appellants/contemnors have not complied with the order of the F 
Division Bench granting benefits in ter1ns of the Government Order. But 
on consideration of the matter it held that no action be taken against 
appellants for contumacious act and directed the appellants to introduce 
a comn1on gradation list of Lo\ver Division Clerical Cadre. 
In appeal before this Court appellants contended that the Division G 
Bench \Vas in error in issuing the directions in exercise of its contempt 
jurisdiction since the judgment of the Division Bench did not contain ·any 
specific order or direction for treating the ex-cadre posts of Clerk-cum-
Cash Collectors as posts in the cadre of Lo\vcr Division Clerk/Assistant 
and for preparation of a combined seniority list including the holders of H 
913 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A· such ex-cadre post in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk/Assistants. In the 
absence of any adjudication on the question and any order or direction 
to that effect in the judgment the appellants could not have been held to 
have acted in a contumacious manner in not treating the writ petitioners 
as members of the cadre of Lower Division Assistant and in not preparing 
B a common gradation list. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Respondents contended that preparation of a common seniority list 
was specifically prayed for in the writ petition and when the Division 
Bench allowed the appeal and granted the reliefs sought by the writ 
petitioners it followed as a necessary consequence that the respondents in 
the writ petition were mandated to treat the writ petitioners and other 
Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors as part of the cadre of Lower Division 
Assistants and give them promotional and other consequential financial 
benefits. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special 
power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under 
the statute and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be 
used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect 
of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising 
the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original 
or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. 
The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there 
has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the 
conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience 
is contumacious. The cou.rt exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled 
to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the 
judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court 
has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to 
consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have 
contained. [922-A-D] 
2. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned 
with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which alleged to 

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