Supreme Court of India
DR. (CAPT.) AKHOURI RAMESH CHANDRA SINHAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 180
- Decided
- 21 February 1997
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the State of Bihar had not willfully disobeyed its earlier order fixing the petitioner’s seniority, and therefore the contempt petition was dismissed, with the State undertaking to promote the petitioner within 15 days.
Summary
The petitioner, Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha, filed a contempt petition alleging that the State of Bihar had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment fixing his seniority from 6 September 1966 and the consequent promotional benefits. He further claimed that officers who were not entitled to seniority were being confirmed with earlier dates, thereby violating the Court’s mandamus. The State, through counsel, explained the delay, submitted an affidavit, and undertook to grant the petitioner the appropriate promotion within fifteen days. The Court examined whether the State’s actions amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience of its order and whether the inter‑seniority of other doctors fell within the scope of contempt. Finding that the Government had not misinterpreted or willfully ignored the judgment and that any grievance regarding other officers could be addressed in separate proceedings, the Court held that there was no contempt. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, with the State’s undertaking recorded.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Bihar deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court's order fixing the petitioner's seniority and promotional benefits.
- Whether the question of inter‑seniority of other doctors falls within the jurisdiction of a contempt proceeding.
- Whether the delay and explanation offered by the State constitute contempt of court.
Subjects
senioritypromotioncontempt of courtwilful disobediencegovernment complianceSupreme Court ordercivil service
Judgment
A DR. (CAPT.) AKHOURI RAMESH CHANDRA SINHA
v.
THE STATE OF BIHARAND ORS.
FEBRUARY 21, 1997
B [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Conte171pt of Court :
Order·passed by Supreme Court-Implementation of-Petitioner alleg-
C ing that inspite of declaration. of his seniority with consequential benefits
ordered by this Court, his seniority has not been restored as per the seniority
vis-a-vis the promotee officers who were not· entitled to the seniority on par
with him, and as such there was wilful disobedience of the orders passed by
this Court;-,-Held, as regards placement of petitioner in appropriate promo-
tional post consequent to the fixation of his seniority, an undertaking on
D behalf of the Government has given to give due promotion to petitioner within
15 days-If any benefits were given to the other officers who were not entitled
to the parity with the petitioner, as alleged by him, it would be open to him
to have his right adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in the light of the
judgment of this Court and the law-No attempt was made by the Govem-
E ment to misinterpret the order passed by this Court-It cannot be said that
there was deliberate and wilful disobedience in implementation of the orders
of this Court.
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION Contempt
Petition (C) No. 488-89 of 1996.
F
In
I.A. Nos. 4-5 and 7.
In
G
Civil Appeal No. 1578"79 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.94/6.12.94 of the Patna
High Court iµ C.W.J.C. No. 7049/93 and 1801 of 1990.
H Akliilesh K. Pandey for the Petitioner/Appellant.
354
A.RC. SINHAv. STATE 355
B.B. Singh for the Respondent. A
Vinod Kr. Kanth, Rudresh Singh and R.P. Wadhwani for Intervenor.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Application for Intervention is dismissed. B
The Petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition on the ground that
the respondents-State has not obeyed the direction issued by this Court in
CA No. 1578-79/1996. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
Presence of the officers who are present is dispensed with. We have heard C
learned counsel on both sides.
The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, it is alleged that
in spite of the declaration of seniority with consequential benefit given by
this Court in the above appeals whereby the appellant is· entitled to
seniority w.e.f. September 6, 1966 with all consequential benefits, the same D
has not been given to him. Secondly, the officers who are not entitled as
per the seniority fixed by the Court, to be above him, have been confirmed
with effect from earlier dates, with consequential benefits. It is in deroga-
tion and in disobedience of the mandamus issued by this Court in the
aforesaid appeals. He has further contended that even as per the proceed-
ings produced today before the Court, the petitioner has not been restored E
'· to the position as per the seniority vis-a-vis the promotee officers who are
not entitled to the seniority on par with him. Therefore, there is wilful
disobedience of the order passed in the above appeals.
Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, F
states that the delay in compliance of the directions of this Court has been
properly explained by AK. Mishra, Under Secretary of the Health Depart-
ment, Government of Bihar, Patna in his affidavit. The Government has
explained how they understood the orders passed by this Court and worked
it out. After the receipt of the judgment through the High Court of Patna,
steps have been taken in working out the directions issued by this Court in G
the aforesaid appeals, they have collected all the relevant material on
account of which some. delay had occasioned and, therefore, there is no
wilful disobedience. He has stated that some of the doctors, S.N. Upadhyay
· and nine others whose names have been mentioned in the affidaVit_by the
under Secretary, AK. Mishra had rendered service in the Military between H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
A the year 1963 to 1966, therefore, they are equally to be treated as seniors
to the petitioners. With regard to the omission to give promotion to the
petitioner over the person who had already become junior but is holding
the senior post, Shri B.B. Singh undertakes that he would see that the
petitioner is given due promotion. This statem~nt was made on the basis
B of the instructions given by the Under Secretary who is present in the
Court.
In view of the rival contentions, the question arises : whether the
respondents have deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order of this
Court. With regard to inter-se seniority of the petitioner and Dr. S.N.
C Upadhyay and others, since the controversy was not raised before this
Court at the time to hearing of appeals, hence we are not inclined to go
into that matter; hence, the matter does not come under the purview of the
contempt. If the respondents misunderstood the scope of the judgment and
have given any benefits which Dr. S.N. Upadhyay and eight others are not
entitled to, i.e., parity with the petitioner, it would be open to him to have
D his right adjudieated in an appropriate proceedings in the light of the
judgment of this Court and the law. No attempt was made by the Govern-
ment to misinterpret the order passed in appeals. So, it cannot be said that
it constitutes a deliberate and wilful disobedience in implementation of the
orders of this Court.
E As regards the placement of the petition in the appropriate promo-
tional post, consequent to the fixation of seniority of the petitioner, Shri
B.B. Singh has given an undertaking on behalf of the State Government
and we record the same. We have no doubt that the State Government
would give due promotion to the petitioner within 15 days from today.
F
Contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of.
R.P. Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search