SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA versus SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAR

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 22-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 22 
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA 
v. 
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 8206 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2012. 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court: 
c 
Contempt proceedings - Order of State Government to 
adjust the appellant an Acharya Pandit in a Government 
Aided Institution against existing vacancy of Head Pandit in 
Government Sanskrit Institution - Not implemented by 
Department - High Court directing to consider the case of 
D appellant following an earlier judgment - Non-compliance of 
- Contempt proceedings - Dropped by High Court observing 
that the appellant had completed the age of 58 years - Held: 
Court is fully satisfied that for one reason or the other, the 
appellant was dragged for nearly 14 years and by efflux of 
time, he has reached the age of 60 years - Therefore, as on 
E date, there cannot be any positive direction for posting him 
at the appropriate place - Though the appellant has made 
out a case for contempt, no purpose will be served by taking 
action against the erring officials - Instead, appellant can be 
adequately compensated by way of monetary benefits -
F Accordingly, 
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, 
Higher 
Education Department is directed to assign suitable post to 
the appellant and corresponding monetary benefits w.e.f. 
21.07.1999 - Service law. 
G 
The appellant, whose promotion as Acharya Pandit 
was approved by the State Government by its order dated 
6.12.1994 w.e.f. 31.~.1987, was found surplus in the 
Government Aided Institution and, consequently, by State 
Government's order dated 16.3.1995, he was adjusted in 
H 
22 
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 
23 
SHEKHAR KUMAR 
the vacancy of Head Pandit in Government Sanskrit A 
Institution. The appellant represented before the State 
Government for his adjustment against the existing 
vacant post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Sahitya. During the 
pendency of the said representation, the State 
Government, by order dated 6.6.1996, cancelled the order 
B 
dated 16.3.1995 and directed the appellant to join his 
former place of posting in the Aided Institution. The 
appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order before the 
State Administrative Tribunal and ultimately filed a writ 
petition before the High Court, which by order dated c 
21.7.1999 directed the State Government to consider the 
case of the appellant following the judgment in Kabita 
Manjari Kar's case (decided on 27.4.1995). However, in 
spite of several rounds of litigation, the order dated 
21.7.1997 was not complied with and ultimately the D 
appellant filed contempt proceedings, which were 
dropped by the High Court observing that the appellant 
had completed 58 years of age and the issue of his 
continuance beyond 58 years could not be considered 
in contempt proceedings. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The record shows that at the Government 
level the grievance of the appellant was properly taken 
care of and it is only at the Department level, the case of 
F 
the appellant was dragged without giving him the posting 
at the appropriate place as directed by the Government. 
This Court is fully satisfied that for one reason or the 
other, the appellant was dragged for nearly 14 years and 
by efflux of time, now he has reached the age of 60 years, 
G 
therefore, as on date, there cannot be any positive 
direction for posting him at the appropriate place. [para 
10] [33-G-H; 34-A] 
1.2. However, taking note of all the earlier orders of 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A the High Court, undertaking given by the standing 
counsel, affidavit filed by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Government and the decision of the Minister, 
School and Mass Education Department, this Court is 
satisfied that the appellant is entitled for equivalent 
B monetary benefits as rightly observed by the State 
Government (Minister concerned) about the appellant's 
entitlement, posting and other benefits at par with the 
case of Kabita Manjari Kar and the interpretation of the 
c 
Department is unacceptable. [para 10] [34-B-C] 
Kabita Manjari Kar vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No. 
1667 of 1992 disposed of on 27.04.1995) - referred to 
1.3. Though the appellant has made out a case for 
contempt, no purpose will be served by taking action 
D against the erring officials, instead the appellant can be 
adequately compensated by way of monetary benefits. 
Accordingly, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher 
Educa

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