NOOR SABA Vs ANOOP MISHRA
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000003-000003 / 2012
Diary number: 37122 / 2011
Advocates: Vs
SUSHMA SURI
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3 OF 2012 IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 & 7 OF 2009 IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 503 of 2007
Noor Saba ... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Anoop Mishra & Anr. ... Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. The contempt petitioner had filed a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution [W.P.(C) No. 503 of 2007] raising a
plea that after her husband had passed away in the year 1980,
while serving as the Headmaster in Government Public School,
Rampur under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, a
meagre and inadequate amount of family pension was being
paid to her leaving her in a dire state of penury and distress.
Page 2
2
The writ petition in question was filed before this Court even
while a writ proceeding on the same issue was pending before
the Allahabad High Court. Notwithstanding the above, taking
into account the peculiar facts of the case, particularly, the
distress that the petitioner claimed to be suffering from, this
Court entertained the writ petition and disposed of the same by
the order dated 29.7.2008 in the following terms :
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the family pension of the petitioner shall be determined in terms of Government Order dated 24.2.1989 and other necessary orders issued from time to time revising the family pension. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from today. After the family pension is determined in terms of the various Government Orders on the subject and the amount of arrears be calculated, the same shall be paid to the petitioner after deducting the payments already made to her on account of family pension. With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” [Para 12]
2. While disposing of the writ petition in the above terms by
order dated 29.7.2008, this Court had recorded certain facts
which being relevant to the present proceedings are being
noticed hereinafter.
The petitioner’s husband late Masood Umer Khan was
initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1959 and
Page 3
3
he was holding the post of Headmaster in the Government
Public School, Rampur when he passed away on 5.4.1980. The
petitioner was granted family pension at the rate of Rs. 200/-
per month which was later revised to Rs. 425/-. The revised
amount was reduced to Rs. 375/- per month and an attempt
was made to recover the excess amount allegedly overdrawn
by the petitioner. The aforesaid action of the State was
challenged by the petitioner in a writ proceeding before the
Allahabad High Court which was, however, dismissed on
4.3.2005. Aggrieved, an intra-court appeal was filed against
the said order dated 4.3.2005 in which an interim order was
passed directing continuance of payment of family pension to
the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month. While the
matter was so situated the writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution [W.P. (C) No. 503/2007] was filed before this Court
which was disposed of in terms of the directions already
noticed and extracted above.
3. Alleging that the directions issued by this Court on
29.7.2008 while disposing of W.P. (C) No. 503/2007 had not
been implemented Contempt Petition (C) No. 6/2009 was filed.
Simultaneously, another contempt petition i.e. Contempt
Page 4
4
Petition(C) No. 7/2009 was instituted contending that in the
proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 503/2007 certain forged and
fabricated documents were placed by the official respondents
before this Court which amounted to an abuse of the process of
the Court for which the respondents in the writ petition are
liable in contempt.
4. In the course of hearing of Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 6
and 7/2009 this Court had passed an order dated 1.9.2010 to
the following effect :
“It is grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the above order the respondents have not settled the family pension as directed. Though learned counsel representing the State of U.P. states that the eligible pension has been settled and is being paid, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner, we direct the Accountant General, U.P. at Allahabad to go into the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court vide para 12 which we had extracted and determine the amount payable till this date and report to this Court within a period of six weeks.
List after the report is received.”
5. Contending that the aforesaid directions dated 1.9.2010
has not been complied with Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2012
has been instituted by the petitioner.
Page 5
5
6. Two significant facts which would render it wholly
unnecessary to adjudicate Contempt Petitions No. 6 and 7 of
2009 may be taken note of at this stage. The first is that by
virtue of the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in the aforesaid two
contempt petitions the issues before the Court have become
crystallized in a somewhat different manner and the
adjudication that would be necessary now has changed its
complexion to one of compliance of the directions contained in
the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010 by the Accountant
General of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The second significant
fact is that no serious issue has been raised on behalf of the
petitioner with regard to the necessity of any further
adjudication of Contempt Petitions No. 6/2009 and 7/2009 and
the entire of the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner has centred around the issues arising in Contempt
Petition No. 3/2012. We, therefore, proceed to consider
Contempt Petition No. 3/2012 and deem it appropriate to close
Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 as not requiring any
further orders of the Court.
7. In Contempt Petition No. 3/2012 the contempt petitioner
had claimed that the Accountant General, State of Uttar
Page 6
6
Pradesh has not taken any steps to comply with the
order/directions dated 1.9.2010 of this Court and has not
calculated the amount of pension payable to the petitioner.
The contempt petitioner has further alleged that inspite of the
repeated reminders the default on the part of the Accountant
General, State of Uttar Pradesh, had persisted. Furthermore, it
is the case of the contempt petitioner that she is an old lady of
72 years of age who has been unjustly deprived of the pension
due to her ever since her husband had passed away on
5.4.1980 while he was still in service.
8. The Respondent No. 1 in the contempt petition, namely,
the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh has responded
to the allegations made in the contempt petition by filing an
affidavit wherein it is stated that the arrears of salary and
pension, including revised pension at the rate of Rs. 3058/- per
month, has been and is being paid to the petitioner on a
regular basis. According to the Chief Secretary, the amount of
pension has been calculated on the basis of Rs. 620/- as the
last pay drawn by the petitioner’s husband. Furthermore,
according to the Chief Secretary, the difference in pension and
the arrears accruing on account of revision of pension following
Page 7
7
the 6th Pay Commission Report has also been deposited in the
bank account of the petitioner (No. 2622) in the District
Cooperative Bank, Rajdwara, Rampur. Alongwith his affidavit,
the Chief Secretary of the State has also enclosed the
certificate of the last pay drawn by the petitioner’s husband
which clearly indicates the same to be Rs. 620/- per month.
9. The Respondent No. 2 in the contempt petition, namely,
the Accountant General of the State of Uttar Pradesh has also
filed an affidavit stating the facts relevant to the case and
asserting that the calculations made by the Office of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur with regard to family pension due to
the petitioner corresponds to the calculation of such pension
made by the office of the Accountant General and that there is
no apparent error in the calculation with regard to the
pensionary entitlements of the petitioner.
10. The order dated 1.9.2010 passed by this Court in
Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 required the
Accountant General of the State to determine the correct
amount of family pension payable to the petitioner in
accordance with the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 503/2007. It is the categorical stand of the
Page 8
8
Accountant General in the affidavit filed that the said order of
this Court has been complied with by him. In this regard the
specific statement of the Accountant General which is to the
following effect may be taken note of :
“However as per the calculations obtained by the office of the respondent from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur, the amount of the family pension mentioned therein is found to be the same as that of the amount determined by the office of the respondent as per the order of this Hon’ble Court and mentioned in the letter report dt. 4.11.2010. Hence there appears to be no difference in calculations of amount by the office of Respondent and the dept. of petitioner.” (Para 6 of the Affidavit dated 16.3.2012)
11. Following the above stand taken by the Accountant
General in his affidavit there has been a significant alteration in
the stand of the petitioner as evident from the additional
affidavit/rejoinder affidavit filed by her to the counter affidavit
of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner now seeks to raise a
dispute with regard to the last pay drawn by her husband which
she contends to be Rs. 1620/- and not Rs. 620/-. On the
aforesaid basis the claim to a higher amount of pension has
been made by the petitioner. Though, the petitioner has
brought on record some material in support of the said claim,
Page 9
9
i.e., another last pay drawn certificate showing the same as Rs.
1620/- and some extracts from the service book of her
husband, the fact remains that the aforesaid documents relied
upon by the petitioner stand contradicted by the last pay drawn
certificate brought on record by the Accountant General in his
affidavit as also the statements made by the Chief Secretary to
the effect that the last pay drawn by the petitioner’s husband
was Rs. 620/- per month. Disputed questions of fact therefore
confront this Court.
12. To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for
contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the
respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court.
The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and
an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for
wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted
and undisputed facts. In the present case not only there has
been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the
basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged
even the said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in
consonance with the established principles of exercise of
contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a
Page 10
10
conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed
the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010. We, accordingly, hold
that no case of commission of any contempt of this Court’s
order dated 1.9.2010 is made out. Consequently, Contempt
Petition No. 3/2012 is dismissed. For reasons already recorded,
Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 shall also stand
closed.
………………..……………….…CJI [P. SATHASIVAM]
…………………..……………….………J. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI]
………………..………………….………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013.
Page 11
11