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