STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MEERA TIWARY & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 11-06-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
v.
MEERA TIWARY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.9750 of 2010)
JUNE 11, 2019
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Jurisdiction of High Court – Respondent
No.1’s husband (since deceased) was appointed Junior Engineer
in the Public Works Department on or about 01.08.1958 – He was
promoted to the post of Temporary Assistant Engineer on ad hoc
basis and was thereafter given regular promotion to the post of
Asst. Engineer– In 1995, he retired from service– Died on
30.05.2004 – Till his death, his retiral benefits were not released–
Respondent No.1 filed writ petition for  payment of post-retiral
benefits of her late husband– Vide order dated 21.09.2004, the
authorities were directed to redress her grievances – Contempt
petition filed by the Respondent no.1 – High Court directed the
authorities to finalise the family pension of the respondent no.1
taking into account the notional salary payable to her husband on
the date of his retirement i.e.30.6.1995– On appeal, held: Authorities
were directed to fully redress the grievances of the petitioner, and/
or to release the retiral dues of late husband of the respondent
no.1– It was not open to the appellants to circumvent the order
passed by the High Court and release provisional pension and
gratuity and that too calculated in relation to the salary and
emoluments of Junior Engineer, a lower post – There were two orders
of promotion, the first ad hoc, and the second, of regular promotion
– Further, after the disposal of the writ petition, in the absence of
any disciplinary proceedings or show cause notice or other material,
it was not open to the authorities to deny the respondent no.1, the
benefits pertaining to the post to which her husband had been
promoted, on the purported ground that he had failed to join the
post and allegedly remained absent from duties for a period of 13
years and 10 months– In proceedings for contempt, the High Court
is entitled to pass orders for effective enforcement of an order
violation of which is alleged – High Court merely directed the alleged
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 915
 915
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
contemnor to finalise the dues payable to the respondent no.1 having
regard to the salary that should have been payable to her husband
on the date of his retirement as Asst. Engineer, the post to which he
was admittedly promoted – High Court did not modify any earlier
order nor did it expand the scope of any earlier order – No ground
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Service Law –
Bihar Service Code – rr.58 and 76.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Significantly, no show cause notice was ever
issued to the husband of the respondent no.1, since deceased,
during his lifetime alleging that he had not joined the duties
pertaining to the post of Assistant Engineer or had remained
absent for a continuous period of five years. Continuous absence
of five years would most certainly have attracted disciplinary
proceedings. There were no disciplinary proceedings. Unable to
accept the argument that the High Court modified or expanded
the scope of the original order in the writ proceedings in contempt.
The concerned authorities were directed to fully redress the
grievances of the petitioner, and/or in other words, to release
the retiral dues of late the husband of the respondent no.1 in full.
The dues necessarily had to be computed having regard to the
salary and allowances pertaining to the post which the husband
of the respondent no.1, since deceased, had held at the time of
his retirement. After the disposal of the writ petition, in the
absence of any disciplinary proceedings or show cause notice or
other material, it is not open to the authorities concerned to deny
the respondent no.1 the benefits pertaining to the post to which
her husband had been promoted, on the purported ground that
he had failed to join the post and had allegedly remained absent
from duties for a period of 13 years and 10 months. There were
two orders of promotion, the first ad hoc, and the second, a regular
promotion order, as per the list of dates filed by the appellants
along with the appeal. [Paras 13-15] [921-F-H; 922-A-C]
1.2 It is preposterous that a second order would have been
issued confirming the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer,
if late husband of the respondent no.1 had not joined the post
pursuant to the earlier order and had remained absent.
A
B
C
D
E

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