Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Two Interpretations Are Possible & Impugned Action Is Not Contumacious: Rajasthan High Court

The judgment was delivered in the contempt plea filed for non-compliance of court's order which granted appointment and consequential benefits to the petitioner, a female health worker.

Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled,

"It is not in dispute that as far as directions to allow the petitioner to join services as Female Health Worker had already been complied with and further according to the respondents, the consequential benefits flowing pursuant to the order of appointment of petitioner dated 08.07.2000 have also been accorded vide order dated 25.10.2011".

It added,

"The petitioner should have challenged the order dated 25.10.2011 by appropriate and separate proceedings in law, if she was inclined to claim entitlement for the back wages/actual monetary benefits for the period during which she did not rendered services."

Background

In the present matter, on 28.04.2008, the court directed respondents to allow the petitioner to join service as Female Health Worker in pursuance of order dated 08.07.2000 within one month and consequential benefits flowing thereof be paid to her within three months.

However, the respondents allowed the petitioner to join services on the post, but failed to provide consequential benefits. Subsequently, a contempt plea was filed, which was disposed of on 19.08.2011 after respondents assurance to extend the consequential benefits within a period of six weeks.

The instant civil contempt petition was filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 whereby the respondents had assured consequential benefits.

Arguments

Placing reliance on Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C Muddaiah, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are guilty of non-compliance of the part of judgment dated 28.04.2008 due to not granting the back wages and actual monetary benefits by awarding only notional benefits.

In response, the counsel for the respondents submitted that as there is no specific directions in the judgment dated 28.04.2008 to pay the back wages and actual monetary benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner has been given benefit on notional basis from July, 2000 to May, 2008 and an amount of Rs.26,746/- has been found payable to the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2011.

The respondents' counsel further submitted the said amount was offered to the petitioner by way of cheque dated 25.10.2011, but the petitioner refused to accept the same contending that this is a part payment of back wages, whereas she is entitled for full back wages w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. 08.07.2000 onwards.

Findings

Relying on Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj (2014) 16 SCC 204, the court observed that a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable, if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious.

Further, reliance was place on Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [(2002) 4 SCC 21], wherein Apex Court opined that the powers under the Contempt of Court Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country

Moreover, the court relied on Smt. Lalita Sharma v. Dr. R. Venkeshwar & Ors wherein, the coordinate bench observed that whether the actual monetary benefits/back wages would be payable to the petitioner from the date of promotion or from the earlier date is a matter requires proper adjudication for which the petitioner should avail appropriate remedy in law and fresh adjudication of disputed issue is not permissible in the contempt proceeding.

The court opined that the claim of petitioner for payment of actual monetary benefits/back wages for the period during which she has not rendered services, is not liable to be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings and non-payment of such monetary benefits by the respondents to the petitioner, may not be treated as non-compliance.

The court observed that the respondents, while considering the consequential benefits pursuant to court's directions, passed a speaking order on 25.10.2011, notionally giving pay increment to the petitioner as well as actual monetary benefits for the period, after allowing joining to the petitioner in service.

The court opined that the petitioner should have challenged the order dated 25.10.2011 by appropriate and separate proceedings in law, if she was inclined to claim entitlement for the back wages/actual monetary benefits for the period during which she did not render services. It also added that after passing the order dated 25.10.2011, the respondents may no longer be alleged defaulter for noncompliance of the order dated 28.04.2008 and in that view of matter, the respondents may not be held guilty for noncompliance of the order dated 28.04.2008.

Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed. 

Adv. Rajendra Sharma appeared on behalf of petitioner, whereas AAG Dr. V.B. Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Click Here To Download Order