Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 336 of 2013

IN

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4985 of 2012

Ram Kishan                                 …Applicant

Versus

Sh. Tarun Bajaj & Ors.                                 …Respondents                      

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant that  

the respondents, who are alleged contemnors herein, have wilfully  

violated  the  judgment  and  order  dated  5.7.2012  passed  by  this  

Court in C.A. No. 4985 of 2012 as the respondents failed to pay all  

consequential  benefits  of  service  as  directed  and  thus,  the  

respondents should be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt  

of  Courts  Act,  1971  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  `the  Act’)  and  

further, to direct the contemnors to implement the order in its true

Page 2

spirit and fix his pension according to the post of Joint Secretary  

(Legal) and provide all its retirement benefits.

2. Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the applicant  

while  working as an Under Secretary (Legal),  Dakshin Haryana  

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `Nigam’) was  

compulsorily retired vide an order dated 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he  

challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004  

and during its pendency, he reached the age of superannuation on  

28.2.2006.   The  said  writ  petition  was  allowed  by  the  learned  

Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2009 quashing  

the impugned order dated 19.11.2003 but did not award the back  

wages to the applicant for the period he was out of job.  The Nigam  

filed LPA No. 646 of 2009 challenging the order of the learned  

Single Judge.  The applicant also filed LPA No. 542 of 2009 for  

claiming the arrears of pay.  The LPA of Nigam was dismissed  

affirming  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  Single  Judge  vide  

judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 and has attained finality.  The  

appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment and  

order dated 10.8.2009.

3. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the judgment and order  

dated 10.8.2009 of the Division Bench by filing the Special Leave  

2

Page 3

Petition which was entertained as C.A. No. 4985 of 2012, which  

was  disposed  of  by  this  Court  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  

5.7.2012 directing that the applicant shall be entitled to the back  

wages for the period during which he was out of job alongwith  

reinstatement.  The applicant has not been given the benefit of re-

designated  pay/post  and the  pay-scale  of  a  higher  post  wherein  

after the compulsory retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman  

Bhasin had been appointed w.e.f. 16.3.2005 and has been extended  

the benefit which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.   

Hence, this Contempt Petition.  

4. Shri Vikas Mehta,  learned counsel  appearing on behalf of  

the applicant, has submitted that as the learned Single Judge of the  

High Court  had allowed the writ  petition  filed  by the applicant  

quashing the order of compulsory retirement with all consequential  

benefits except back wages and this Court allowed the appeal of  

the applicant and has given back wages also.  The conjoint reading  

of both the orders tantamount to grant of all possible/permissible  

benefits to the applicant for his service. As the applicant was senior  

to Smt. Poonam Bhasin, he was entitled to the re-designated post as  

well as the salary for the post of Joint Secretary (Legal), which has  

been denied by the respondents.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled  

3

Page 4

for  the  claim  and  the  respondents  should  be  prosecuted  and  

punished for disobedience of the said judgments and orders.   

5. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Narender  Hooda,  learned  AAG  

appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed  

the application contending that there is neither any direction of any  

court to give benefit of the revised post to the applicant, nor his  

candidature  has  ever  been  considered  for  that  post.  The  State  

authority cannot be forced to pay the salary to two persons for one  

post. The applicant has never challenged the re-designation of Smt.  

Poonam Bhasin.  Thus, there is no wilful disobedience of any order  

passed by this Court. The application for initiating the contempt  

proceedings is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected.  

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  contentions  advanced  by  

learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge granting  

the relief to the applicant reads:

“Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the order  dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-27) is set aside and  the  petitioner  is  ordered  to  be  reinstated  into  service  with  all  consequential  benefits.  It  is,  however,  clarified that  the petitioner  will  not  be  entitled to wages for the period he was out of job.”

           (Emphasis added)

4

Page 5

The judgment and order of this Court dated 5.7.2012 in Civil  

Appeal No. 4985/2012 reads:

“Accordingly, we allow the appeal and modify the  order of the learned Single Judge, as also of the  Division Bench, by directing that the appellant will  also  be  entitled  to  back-wages  for  the  period  during  the  termination  of  his  services  and  reinstatement in terms of the High Court’s order.”

8. Both the judgments referred to hereinabove speak of back  

wages and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the High  

Court  referred  to  all  consequential  benefits.   Therefore,  the  

question does arise as to whether such an order would also mean  

that  the  applicant  could  claim post  revision  and benefits  of  the  

higher post without being considered for the said post.  

9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to  

punish  an  offender  for  his  wilful  disobedience/contumacious  

conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that  

respect  and  authority  commanded  by  the  courts  of  law  are  the  

greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall  be  

protected  and  the  entire  democratic  fabric  of  the  society  will  

crumble  down  if  the  respect  of  the  judiciary  is  undermined.  

Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the  

hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of  

5

Page 6

caution  and  unless,  thus,  otherwise  satisfied  beyond  reasonable  

doubt,  it  would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to  

exercise  jurisdiction  under  the  Act.  The  proceedings  are  quasi-  

criminal  in  nature,  and  therefore,  standard  of  proof  required  in  

these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather  

be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in  

exercise  of  contempt  jurisdiction  on  mere  probabilities.  (Vide:  

V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC  

2153;  Chhotu Ram v.  Urvashi  Gulati  & Anr.,  AIR 2001 SC  

3468;  Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR  

2002 SC 1405;  Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya &  

Anr., AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of  

U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v.  

Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299).     

10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established  

that  disobedience  of  the  order  is  ‘wilful’.  The  word  ‘wilful’  

introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the  

mind  of  person/contemnor  by  gauging  his  actions,  which  is  an  

indication  of  one’s  state  of  mind.  ‘Wilful’  means  knowingly  

intentional,  conscious,  calculated  and  deliberate  with  full  

knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual,  

6

Page 7

accidental,  bonafide  or  unintentional  acts  or  genuine  inability.  

Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions.  

The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable  

excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be  

distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly  

or inadvertently.  It does not include any act done negligently or  

involuntarily.  The deliberate conduct of a person means that he  

knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.  Therefore,  

there has to be a calculated action with evil  motive on his part.  

Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience  

is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was  

not  possible  for  the  contemnor  to  comply  with  the  order,  the  

contemnor cannot be punished.  “Committal or sequestration will  

not  be  ordered unless  contempt  involves  a  degree  of  default  or  

misconduct”.   (Vide:  S.  Sundaram  Pillai,  etc.   v.  V.R.  

Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala  

Rao  v.  Naragani  Govinda  Sehararao  & Anr., AIR  1989  SC  

2185;  Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana &  

Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, AIR  

2000 SC 1880;  M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors.  v.  

Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105;  State of Orissa &  

7

Page 8

Ors. v. Md. Illiyas,  AIR 2006 SC 258; and  Uniworth Textiles  

Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753).  

11. In  Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.,  AIR  

1989 SC 2071, this Court dealt with a case wherein  direction was  

issued to the Union of India to pay the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the  

applicant therein and release him from  defence service.  The said  

amount was paid to the applicant after deducting the income tax  

payable  on  the  said  amount.  While  dealing  with  the  contempt  

application, this Court held that “withholding the amount cannot be  

held to be either malafide or was there any scope to impute that the  

respondents intended to violate the direction of this Court.”  

12. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman &  

Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293, the Court while dealing with the issue  

whether a doubt persisted as to the applicability of the order of this  

Court to complainants held that it would not give rise to a contempt  

petition.  The court was dealing with a case wherein the statutory  

authorities had come to the conclusion that the order of this court  

was not applicable to the said complainants while dealing with the  

case under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.  

8

Page 9

13. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations  

are  possible,  and if  the  action  is  not  contumacious,  a  contempt  

proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of  

the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be  

read  in  its  entirety.  Therefore,  the  element  of  willingness  is  an  

indispensable  requirement  to  bring  home  the  charge  within  the  

meaning  of  the  Act.  (See:  Sushila  Raje  Holkar  v.  Anil  Kak  

(Retd.), AIR  2008  (Supp-2)  SC  1837;  and  Three  Cheers  

Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC  

735).

14. In view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, we have  

repeatedly asked the learned counsel  appearing for  the applicant  

under what circumstances this Court can ask the statutory authority  

to pay the salary to two persons for one post, particularly in view  

of the fact that Smt. Poonam Bhasin had never been a party to the  

lis, nor her re-designation/promotion had ever been challenged by  

the applicant  or  someone else.  More so,  learned counsel  for the  

applicant  could not  point  out  the service rules applicable  to the  

applicant to assess his eligibility etc.  

15. In such a fact-situation, leaving the issue of entitlement of  

the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made  

9

Page 10

out to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondents.  

The petition is totally misconceived and devoid of merit, hence, it  

is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  

....................................................J.  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

      …….……………………………J.

  (J. CHELAMESWAR) New Delhi,  January 17, 2014

10