AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Gangele, J
The petitioner (Miss. Sharad Asthana) has filed this application for review of the order dated 04052012, passed in Writ Appeal No. 211 of 2012. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 19042004 passed in Writ Petition No.720/2004(S) directed to consider the case of the petitioner (Miss. Sharad Asthana) in regard to grant of benefit of increment. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Public Instructions considered the case of the petitioner and passed a detailed order on 26022011. The authority held that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of increment. Thereafter, for noncompliance of the order, a contempt 2 Review Petition No. 182 of 2012 petition i.e. Contempt (Civil) No. 469/2011 was filed. Learned Single Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction, vide order dated 08042011 directed the respondents to grant benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction issued the following directions in favour of the petitioner:
But while considering the contempt petition, the Court can looked into the fact that compliance of order has been made in accordance with the direction issued in the order.
Since, the order passed by Hon. Apex Court in the matter of Asha Saxena (supra) has been overlooked, therefore, it cannot be said that order passed in W. P. No.720/2004 has been complied with properly as per circular dated 21/09/1974 is very much in force as held by Hon. Apex Court. Therefore, to provide the petitioner with the fruits of order passed in W.P(S)No.720/04, it is directed that respondents should pass an appropriate order granting benefit of two advance increment to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of circular dated 21/09/1974.
List the matter after four weeks for further orders.
From the perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is clear that the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to pass an order granting the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner. That order has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 04052012 against which the present review petition has been filed.
This Court has clearly observed in writ appeal that an 3 Review Petition No. 182 of 2012 order contrary to the order passed in a case, cannot be passed in a contempt petition. It is well settled principle of law that the contempt jurisdiction can be exercised only by the Court in regard to enforcement of an order and it cannot be exercised for passing an independent order.
In the present case, the learned Single Judge has passed an independent order in contempt jurisdiction contrary to the order passed in Writ Petition No.720 of 2004(S). In such circumstances, in our opinion, there is no apparent error on the face of record.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently and he has made remarks against the Court also. Some contemptuous remarks have also made by the counsel for the petitioner in the review petition. However, looking to the nature of the case, in our opinion, we do not find it just and proper to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner. However, looking to the remarks made in this review petition, it is hereby dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/ [Rupees five thousand only]. The review petition is dismissed, accordingly.