AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Kakru, J.—The petitioners have alleged non-compliance of order dated 29th September, 1993 passed in CWP No. 2163/1991 and
a few facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, as set out by the parties, are briefly stated hereunder:-
The factual position on the strength of which writ petition was filed is that the petitioners are working as plumber and pump operator on the
establishment of the High Court. They seek parity with the pay scale of plumbers and operators of the public works department on the ground of
principle of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Their contention is that they are performing identical and similar
duties as are being perfomed by the plumb-ers and pump operators of the Public Works Department who have been given the benefit of SRO 59
dated; 6th Feb. 1990. The Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 29th September, 1993, operative part of the Judgment is reproduced
for facility of reference :-
I allow this petition and direct that respondent No. 1 shall effectively consider the question of making suitable amendments in the service rules of
the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid observations. This shall be done expeditiously and without any delay.
Having alleged violation of aforementioned order, the Court chose to put the respondent No. 1 on notice who has filed a statement of facts
which is supported by an affidavit and such statement reveals that in compliance to the directions of the Court matter was referred to the rules
committees by respondent vide letter No. 7364/ NG dated 1-12-1993, simultaneously a letter was addressed to the Secretary to Government
Law department vide No. 7363/NG dated; 1-12-1993 requesting therein, to upgrade the post of Plumbers and Pump Operators of the High
Court. These communications reveal that it was within a span of less than nine weeks that the respondent considered the question of making
amendments to the rules and took steps which he was required to take in compliance to the directions of the Court.
The assertion of the petitioners alleging willful and intentional violation of the order of the Court by the respondent is required to be dwelt upon
in the light of the mandate of the order of the Court and statement of facts filed by the respondent.
A plain reading of the order passed by the Court makes it obligatory upon the respondents to consider effectively the question of making
suitable amendments in service rules so as to bring the pay scale of the petitioners at par with the Plumbers and Pump Operators covered under
SRO 59 dated 6th Feb. 1990.
The statement of facts gives the details of steps which the respondents has taken. The communications accompanying the statement of facts
reveal that the respondent has acted upon vexed issue within a span of nine weeks only which takes me to a conclusion that he has complied with
it, with utmost promptitude and the petitioners are guilty of falsehood and such stand has prompted the Court to issue the notice in the contempt
proceedings to the respondent.
No doubt, the rules have not been amended which is the grievance of the petitioners but amendment sought to the rules is not within the
competence of the respondent and the petitioners have resorted to coercive mode of action against the respondent requiring him to do something
what is incapable of implementation because of lack of his competence and I hold that no contempt proceedings are maintainable on such
untenable cause.
The learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the respondent is bound to amend the service rules in terms of the Judgment, hence
according to him he is guilty of contempt. He has at the top of his voice made an abortive attempt to persuade the Court to issue the rule against
the respondent but his contention is devoid of substance which is evident from the reasons detailed in the preceding paras. Moreso, it is well settled
principle of law that the right of a person who moves the machinery of the Court for contempt is limited to the extent to bring the fact to the notice
of the Court which according to him constitutes contempt of Court and he can continue to render assistance to the Court till the matter is
concluded but contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemner only and the proceed- ings cannot be protracted just for pleasure of the
party interested and having considered the matter I have come to a conclusion that the petitioners' have sought an action for contempt against the
respondent without any justification.
The facts detailed above to make it emphatically cur that the petitioners have resorted to suppression and distortion of facts and their such
conduct has resulted in abuse of judicial process and such practice warrants to be discouraged. I would have burdened the petitioners with costs
but I cannot afford to lose the sight of the fact that they are trying to achieve parity in the pay scale on which count Court has returned a finding in
their favour, therefore, a lenient view is called for, accordingly the contempt petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
However, this order shall not debar the petitioners to invoke any legal remedy if available to them against the State and its functionaries if so
advised.