SHRI N. K. JANU,DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY DIVISION, AGRA AND OTHERS versus LAKSHMI CHANDRA

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 10-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
SHRI N. K. JANU,DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY
DIVISION, AGRA AND OTHERS
v.
LAKSHMI CHANDRA
(Civil Appeal No. 3740 of 2019)
APRIL 10, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Jurisdiction – Respondent filed writ
petition – Disposed of – Judgment affirmed by Supreme Court inter
alia holding that the daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale
as received by their counter-parts in the Government – Respondent
again filed writ petition – Directions passed vide order dtd. 23.10.08
– In terms of such order, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry
Division Agra, passed order that the respondent was not eligible
for regularisation/equal pay – Contempt Application (C) No.1632
of 2009 filed by the respondent – Various orders passed seeking
personal presence of the officers of the State – Appellants eventually
filed Special Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to approach the High Court by filing Review Petition –
Appellants filed Review Petition – Dismissed for want of prosecution
on 06.12.2017 – Application for recall of said order – Dismissed –
On appeal, held: Once an order was passed by the Department, it
was open to the respondent to challenge the said order by way of
writ petition, but the contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked –
Order of the Court on 23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the
respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of
minimum regular pay scale – Since the appellants considered the
claim of regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale,
the only remedy of the respondent was by way of the writ petition –
High Court exceeded the contempt jurisdiction to compel the officers
of the State to appear in court – Grievance regarding regularization
of the service on account of break in service could not have been
taken up in contempt proceedings – High Court not justified in
passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers –
Orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless
proved otherwise – Contempt Application dismissed – Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts
Rules, 2001.
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 618
618
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Once an order had been passed by the
Department, it was open to the respondent to challenge the said
order by way of a Writ Petition, but the Contempt Jurisdiction
could not be invoked.  The Contempt Court is to ensure that the
order of the Court is complied with.  The order of the Court on
23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the respondent for
regularization of his services and for payment of minimum regular
pay scale. Since the appellants considered the claim of
regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale, the only
remedy of the respondent was by way of the Writ Petition.  The
High Court exceeded the Contempt Jurisdiction to compel the
officers of the State to appear in court and in fact, the High Court
travelled much beyond the orders passed by the Single Bench
on 23.10.2008.  [Paras 15, 16][627-B-D]
1.2 Grievance regarding regularization of the service on
account of a break in service could not have been taken up in
Contempt proceedings, when such issue had attained finality in
the High Court. The High Court was not justified in passing orders
from time to time to secure presence of the officers. The officers
of the State discharge public functions and duties. The orders
are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved
otherwise. The officers pass orders as a custodian of public money.
Therefore, merely because an order has been passed, it does
not warrant their personal presence. The summoning of officers
to the court to attend proceedings, impinges upon the functioning
of the officers and eventually it is the public at large who suffer
on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them.
The practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and
does not serve the purpose of administration of justice in view of
the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary. If an
order is not legal, the Courts have ample jurisdiction to set aside
such order and to issue such directions as may be warranted in
the facts of the case. Entire proceedings in Contempt Application
No.1632 of 2009 were wholly unjustified and in excess of
jurisdiction vested with the Contempt Court.  The Contempt
Applicatio

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