Jnanendra Kr. Paul Choudhury vs General Insurance Corporation of India and Others

M. Sharma, J.—This application for contempt of court has been filed by the Petitioner for non compliance of the judgment and order dated 8.9.88 passed by the Division Bench of the court in Civil Rule No. 241/79.

The writ Petitioner in the said civil rule was the Branch Manager of one of the Insurance Companies (M/S Howrah Insurance Company Ltd.) Nagaon which ceased to exist after enactment of General insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. After the nationalization, the Petitioner was declared as Field Worker and thereafter promoted as Inspector Gr-II and then as Inspector Gr-I. In the writ petition the allegation was that he was categorized without jurisdiction as Field Worker by the Lower Management Service Committee appointed by the Chairman of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. meant for the development staff as a consequence of which the Petitioner being placed at the bottom of the development staff of the business suffered both in pay benefit as well as an promotion. As his representation had not been attended to by the concerned Respondents he filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 241/79 and this Court by judgment dated 8.9.88 directed the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner�s categorization and expressed court''s view that the Petitioner may be considered at least as a Junior Officer as the court was not inclined to issue mandamus and refer the matter for reconsideration of the Respondents. After this judgment the writ Petitioner issued notices to the Respondents condemners for compliance of the order. Alleging that the Petitioner''s case was not considered as per direction of this Court, the Petitioner filed petition praying before the court to draw in appropriate contempt proceeding against the condemners for their wilful deify and latches in reconsidering the categorization of the Petitioner. The condemners filed affidavit countering the allegations of willful disobedience of the order of the court. In defence of their stand the condemners contended that on the nationalization of the General Insurance Business the General Insurance Corporation of India and its four subsidiary companies, namely, Oriental insurance Company Ltd., National Insurance Company Ltd., United India Insurance Company Ltd. and New India Assurance Company Ltd. were formed taking in their folds the various Insurance Companies in existence prior to such nationalization. After such nationalization by notification dated 8th May, 1972 a Committee was appointed called "General Insurance Service Integration Committee (sic) known as "Mathrani Committee" and he said committee submitted (sic) in respect of categorization of employees only at the senior most (sic) for and the lower category employees the Board of Directors of the Corporation (sic) meeting held on 27th May, 1974 passed resolution constituting a (sic) service Committee" for each of its subsidiary companies to (sic) of persons suitable to hold the post at the Lower Management (sic) make provisional appointments and to prepare provisional (sic) but not authorized to categories the incumbent as an (sic) of the development staff. Accordingly under the said process (sic) as member of the development staff on the basis of (sic) this Petitioner preferred appeal before the (sic) the purpose but the same was rejected.

This aspect was placed before the writ court at the time of hearing and considering this, this Court held as follows:

As a writ court we cannot decide to which category of officers the Petitioner belongs and to direct the Respondents to categories the Petitioner as such. We can only direct the appropriate authority to reconsider the question of categorization of the Petitioner.

It is further held that we may further state that according to us the claim of the Petitioner to categories him at least as a Junior Officer has appeared as justified and so we hope he would be classified at least as Junior Officer inasmuch as the Petitioner could not have been reasonably regarded to belong to Class-II cadre of development staff.

Apparently the Respondents constituted a committee to consider the Petitioner�s case as per direction of the said judgment. A committee was con-stituted for the purpose and Petitioner was heard at length and the earlier decision of categorization of the Petitioner had been upheld on the reasons given in the report of categorization committee (Annexure -III to the show cause reply of the Respondents).

In his contempt petition the Petitioner challenged the authority and jurisdiction to constitute the categorization committee as this committee was formed with the Chairman cum Managing Director of its subsidiary, namely, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. According to the Petitioner the committee should have been constituted exclusively with the Board of Directors of the General Insurance Corporation and not with the Chairman cum Managing Director of the subsidiary the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Petitioners stand was that to consider the categorization of the Petitioner the authority was only with the committee constituted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The reply of the condemners to the allegation is that the categorization of the Petitioner alongwith others was done initially by the Lower Management Service Committee constituted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The Petitioner was categorized by the said committee as a member of the development staff in accordance with the norms evolved for the said purpose. The subsequent categorization of the Petitioner as Field Worker in Class-II category was done by the committee duly constituted under the 1976 scheme and on completion of the process of categorization the said committee was dissolved and the members thereof retired in due course. It was, therefore, not possible to have the said committee reconstituted for reconsideration of the question of categorization of the Petitioner. There was also no specific order in the judgment that the said committee has to reconsider the question of categorization of the Petitioner which is beyond the control of the condemners/Respondents. The judgment specifically stated that the matter was left to be decided either by the committee of the Board or any other appropriate authority underline supplied) and in compliance to the direction the Chairman cum Managing Director of the company constituted a committee for reconsideration of the question of categorization of the Petitioner.

Annexure-3 to the show cause reply clearly indicates that the contempt Petitioner did not contend the factual position but represented that he was working in different area and his business performance should be evaluated in this context and on that basis the committee found the categorization of the Petitioner justified on the basis of his business performance set out in his Bio date (sic, data). It is further contended that as understood by the condemners the judgment of this Court did not direct the Respondents to categories the Petitioner as Junior Officer but left it to be decided by the appropriate authority entrusted with the duty to reconsider the question of categorization of the Petitioner and on the materials available on record and the norms evolved for the purpose and uniformly applicable to all similarly situated employees of the company came to a definite finding that the categorization of the Petitioner as a member of the development staff and as a Field Worker was correct and justified.

From the above discussion it emerges that as per the direction of the< judgment the Respondents condemners constituted the committee to reconsider the Petitioner�s categorization and arrived to a certain finding. Now the question before this Court is whether this finding amounts to willful disobedience of the court''s order. Condemners categorically contended that there is no Intention on the part of the Respondents to deliberately disobey any direction of this Court, that Respondents were under the impression that process of reconsideration of the question of categorization of the Petitioner was complete on affording him an opportunity of personal hearing and the matter was done within the extended time by the order of the court. Lastly the Respondents/condemners submitted that if the order of the Chairman cum Managing Director, confirming the categorization of the Petitioner as, member of the development staff and as a Field Worker is held by this Court as willful disobedience and not in conformity with the direction of this Court the condemners tender unconditional and unqualified apology for the same.

In catena of decisions of the High Courts the position of law is that resort to contempt proceeding for the purpose of securing execution of the court''s order for the, benefit of a private litigation is not to be encouraged and that the contempt proceedings are not substitute for proceeding with enforcement of private legal rights, The purpose of the contempt proceeding is not to execute any order for which aggrieved party shall have recourse to oilier proceedings known to law.

In the instant contempt petition the Petitioner challenged the constitution of the committee for categorization as not valid and without jurisdiction to consider the case of the Petitioner. Apparently this stand has set out a new case for the Petitioner for which he cannot get relief or execution of the earlier order on the strength of a contempt petition as the purpose of contempt is not to execute judgment or order. Contempt of court signifies willful disregard or disobedience of court''s order. It also signifies such conduct as stand, to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrupt. Inability to comply an order, as directed by the court, under some reasonable circumstances, cannot amount to a contempt. It is also a settled position of law that there is no contempt in inability to obey orders of the court where the party charged with contempt, without fault on his part, is beyond its control to comply with the order. The criteria to understand whether contempt of court has been made by condemners'' court has to examine the conduct of the condemners which attributed the effect of contumacy to the prestige and authority of the court and which is likely to lower the esteem of the court in the mind of public. To constitute the contempt essential, ingredient is willful disobedience and ''willful'' connotes ''purposeful and clear intention to flout'' (1986 if Patna LJR (HC) 933). Every infraction of the court''s order does not amount to contempt of court until and unless willful and deliberate violation of the court''s order is proved. In Ahmed Ali Vs. The Superintendent and Others, which was relied in (1988) 1 GLR 352 , it was held :

One of the essential attributes of a Court of Record is to exercise an inherent power in itself to protect and foster the administration of justice, It is essential to safeguard the dignity of the court and protect it from any attack from any one which would undermine this dignity and lower the Court''s prestige in the eyes of the common man. So what would offend this dignity and lower the Court''s prestige is a matter for the court to determine. A fortiori what is contumacious is for the court to decide. Its discretion cannot be confined within the four walls of a definition.

It was further held - It is settled that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold one guilty of contempt. Although contempt may be committed, in the absence of willful disobedience on the part of the condemner, he will not be held guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Thus accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one''s being held guilty of contempt.

As it appears for an amicable settlement, an exgratia payment of Rs. 30,000/- was made to the contempt Petitioner by order dated 19.1.90 and the same was accepted with protest that he is entitled to payment as a Junior Officer. It is the stand of the condemner that the exgratia payment was offered as desired by the court for an amicable settlement and not as a payment to which the Petitioner is entitled. From the above discussion I hold that there was no deliberate willful violation of the court''s order. The condemners after giving opportunity to the Petitioner, as per direction of this Court, found the Petitioner not entitled to his claim and Petitioner�s challenge of the constitution of the committee for categorization cannot be decided in the contempt petition which apparently is a separate cause of action and for which Petitioner has recourse through other proceedings known to law.

In the result the contempt petition''s dropped.