T.R. DHANANJAYA versus VASUDEVAN

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 25-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T.R. DHANANJAYA 
v . 
.T. VASUDEVAN 
AUGUST 25, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ .] 
Contempt of Cowt Act, 1972 : 
Se1vice Matter--Cowt orde1ing creation of additional post of Engineer-
C in-Chief to accommodate the petitioner--Govemment granted time to imple-
ment the orde1~Petitioner denied promotion to the post on the ground of his 
ineligibili~Eligibility of the petitioner not questioned despite Govemment 
being a pa1ty -Held : Action of the respondent constituted deliberate and 
wilful disobedience of Cowt's Order--One month simple imprisonment 
awarded to the respondent. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
D was Chief Engineer of Bangalore Municipal Corporation. As a last 
resort to salvage him, the Government had revalidated the Rules but was 
unsalvaged. He had challenged the judgment of the High Court but by that 
time he had retired from service as Chief Engineer. Though he was 
unsuccessful, while declining to inter:fere with the order of the High Court, 
this Court directed that he would be treated as employee of the corporation 
for purpose of all retiral benefits. The petitioner who was. competing with 
D and became successful, apprehending that the benefits given to D by 
virtue of this Court's order might be construed by the Government to mean 
denial of the rights flowing to him under the order passed by the High 
Court and by this Court, and sought protection of his rights, and prayed 
for clarification of the order as he was not made a party to the appeal. 
This Court clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits 
flowing from those or.ders. To effectuate the said rights the Corporation 
might create supernumerary post for the period in question and directed 
the State Government to issue necessary orders in this behalf. 
The Government directed the Corporation to implement the said 
order of this Court. The Corporation accordingly created a super-
numerary post of an Additional Chief Engineer to be filled by promotion 
of the petitioner. However, the Government directed the Corporation to 
H promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer for a period 
64 
T.R. DHANANJAYA v. J. VASUDEVAN· 
65 
of 24 days only . 
A 
... 
~ 
Aggrieved by the Government's order the petitioner preferred the 
present contempt petition. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that he was entitled to 
promotion as an Engineer-in-Chief; and that the denial thereof was a B 
deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court. 
' 
~ 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the petitioner was 
not eligible for the post of Chief Engineer; that he was eligible for conse-
quential benefits only for 24 days as superintending Engineer; and that the c 
action of the Government does not amount to contempt of Court. 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Corporation created an additional post of Engineer-
in-Chief pursuant tG the order of this Court and directed that in the post D 
thus created the petitioner be accommodated with consequential benefits. 
When the matter had remained unattended by the Government and this 
contempt petition was filed, the Government had requested this Court for 
time for implementation of the direction, which was granted. [71-B-C] 
2. What remained for the respondent was only implementation of the E 
order passed by this Court in furtherance of the action taken thereunder 
by the Corporation. It is now clear that instead of implementing the order, 
an attempt has been made to circumvent the same and deny the benefits to 
the petitioner. The petitioner is a Corporation employee and the stand of 
the Government appears to be to give benefit to their employees. So, an 
F 
attempt has now been made to get into the rule position and to find whether 
the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of 
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. It is now 
stated that according to the rules the petitioner would be eligible only as 
Superintending Engineer and not as Chief Engineer. When direction was 
given, Government was a party to the proceedings and it was never brought G 
to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner was not eligible. [71-D-F] 
~ 
3.1. It is seen that all through the Government was a party. It was not 
brought to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner was not eligible 
--..._. 
for promotion, in contradistinction with D, or any other. When the claim 
inter-se had been adjudicat

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