EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD AND ANR.versusD. NAGULU NAIDU

A                 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD AND ANR.
                                 v.
                          D. NAGULU NAIDU

                              NOVEMBER 7, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Constitution of India. 1950: Article 2 I 5.

         Order/direction of High Court-Wilful violation of-Contempt
C proceedings-Employer ordered transfer ofemployee-Employee challenged
    transfer order in writ petition before High Court-Single Judge of High
    Court did not suspend transfer order-But directed that transfer order would
    be subject to final decision in writ petition-Employee filed writ appeal
    against order ofSingle Judge-Division Bench in exercise ofpower under
    Art.215 issued show-cause notice to employer as to why he should not be
D   suitably dealt with for not having complied with earlier direction of High
    Court in some other proceedings-Held: Division Bench wrongly exercised
    powers under Art. 215.

          The appellant ordered transfer of the respondent-employee.
                                                                                  -
    The respo1.dent-employee filed a writ petition before the High Court
E   challenging the transfer order. The Single Judge of the High Court
    did not suspend the transfer order but directed that the order of
    transfer would be subject to final decision on the writ petition. The
    respondent-employee filed a Writ Appeal against the order of the
    Single Judge. In that appeal the Division Bench in exercise of power
    under Article 215 of the Constitution issued a show-cause notice to
F   the appellant as to why he should not be suitably dealt with for having
    not• complied with the earlier direction of the High Court made in
    some other proceedings. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the
    present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
         HELD: When against the order of the Single Judge of the High
    Court the respondent had approached the Division Bench the only
    question which the Division Bench was to consider is whether the
    Single Judge was justified in not suspending the order of transfer
H   passed by the appellant. The Division Bench had wrongly exercised
                                       560
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD. v. D. NAGULU NAIDU [PATTANAIK, !.] 561


powers under Article 215 of the Constitution on the basis that some          A
earlier order pas!ed in some other proceeding had not been complied
with, Article 215 of the Constitution, no doubt, confers ample power
on the High Court to commit for contempt but when the appeal
before it was in relation to legality or otherwise of the refusal of the
Single Judge to pass an interim order of suspension of the transfer
order, the question of exercising power of contempt under Article 215        B
of the Constitution for the alleged non-compliance of any earlier
direction of the Court does not arise and was not called for. Even
otherwise on the facts of this case it is difficult to conceive that the
Appellant had wilfully violated any direction/order of the Court.
                                                              (563 B-E[
                                                                             c
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14221 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 620 of 1996.
                                                                             D
        K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.
               '
        Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
                                                                             E
        PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

      This Appeal by special Leave is directed against the judgment of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 4.7.96 passed in Writ Appeal No.
620 of 1996. By the impugned order the High Court has exercised powers
under Article 215 of the Constitution and directed the contemnor to be       F
present in the Court on 15.7.1996 for receiving appropriate sentence on a
conclusion that the contemnors have wilfully not given effect to the order
passed in Writ Petition No. 14282 of 1994.

       The respondent D. Nagulu Naidu was appointed as nominal muster G
roll electrician in the year 1979 under the appellant on a purely temporary
basis. Pursuant to the orders issued by the Government ·of Aiidhra Pradesh
dated 19.4.1988 for regularisation of persons working on nominal muster
rolls from 1.1.70 to 31.3.1984, the services of the respondent was
regularised by proceedings of the Executive Officer Devasthanam dated
30. l 0.1990. He was regularised as helper with effect from 19.4.1988. He H
    562                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition contending inter alia that
  the regularisation should have been from the date of his initial appointment
  on 16.7.1979. He also contended that he should have been regularised as
  electrician. The post of electrician was not available under Tirumala
  Tirupati Devasthanams Employees services Rules, 1989 which was brought
  into force on 24.10.1989 and the post of electrician is a promotional post.
B From the post of helper the next promotion is to Assistant Wireman and
  from there to Wireman, and from there to Electrician. An Electrician's
  post is 3 steps above the Helper's post. After the rules came into force the
  respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Wireman with effect
  from 18.6.1992. He filed a Writ Petition bearing no.14282 of 1994 claiming
  relief of being entitled to the regular scale of pay attached to the post of
C Electrician since 12.8.1979 and further contended that the order of
  regularisation regularising him as Helper is bad in law. The said Writ
  Petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge by order dated 23.1.1995
  with the direction that the respondent be appointed to the post ofElectrician
  from the date on which his juniors were appointed or atleast from the date
  of his extracting the work of Electrician only after the respondent acquires
D requisite qualification for being appointed as Electrician. Since none of
  the juniors of the respondent had been appointed or promoted as Electrician
  the Executive Officer of the r: evasthanam intimated the respondent that
   he i~ not entitled to be appointed as Electrician. This order of the Exec.utive
  Officer dated 30.1.1996 was challenged by· the respondent which was
   registered as Writ Petition No. 3641 of 1996 and is pending before a
E Learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh of High Court. In the meantime
  the Chief Engineer ofDevasthanam transferred the respondent from Tirupati
  to Tirumala office by order dated 17.5.1996. This order of transfer was
   again challenged by the respondent in the High Court which was registered
   as Writ Petition No. 10674of1996 and an application for interim direction
   was also filed which was registered as WPMP No. 12974 of 1996. The
F learned Single Judge did not suspend the order of transfer but directed
   that the transfer of the respondent will be subject to final decision in the
   Writ Petition. This order of learned Single Judge dated 7.6.1996 was
   assailed by filing a Writ Appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No.
   620 of l 996. In that appeal the Division Bench issued a show cause notice
G to the appellant as to why they should not be suitably dealt with for having
   not complied with the earlier direction of the High Court. By the impugned
   order dated 4.7.1996 the High Court having held that the appellants are
   guilty of contempt and having decided to exercise power under Article
   215 of the Constitution, the appellants have approached this Court.

H          The question for consideration under the aforesaid circumstances is
       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD. v. D. NAGULU NAIDU [PATTANAIK, J.]         563



  whether the High Court was at all justified in exercising power under           A
  Article 215 of the Constitution in the Writ Appeal which had been filed by
  the respondents against the crder ofthe learned Single Judge dated 7.6.1996.
  It is apparent that the order of transfer of the respondent from Thirupathy
  to Thirumala was the ·subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.
  I 0674 of 1996 and in that Writ Petition when application for interim
  suspension of the order of transfer was filed, the learned Single Judge did     B
  not suspend the order but held that the order of transfer would be subject
  to final decision of the Writ Petition. When againstthat order the respondent
  had approached the Division Bench the only question which the Division
  Bench was to consider is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in
  not suspending the order of transfer passed by the Devasthanam Authorities.
  It is indeed surprising to notice that the Division Bench has exercised         C
  powers under Article 215 of the Constitution on the basis that some earlier
. order passed in some other proceeding had not been complied with. Article
 215 of the Constitution, no doubt, confers ample power on the High Court
 to commit for contempt but when the appeal before it was in relation to
 legality or otherwise of the refusal of the learned Single Judge to pass an
  interim order of suspension of the order of transfer, the question of           D
  exercising power of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution for
 the alleged non-compliance of any earlier direction of the Court does not
 arise and was not called for. Even otherwise on the facts narrated earlier it
 is difficult to conceive that the Devasthanam Authorities have wilfully
 violated any direction/order of the Court. In our considered opinion there       E
 was no occasion for the Division Bench of the High Court to invoke the
  powers under Article 215 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances
 as already stated.

      We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench
of the High Court dated 4.7.96, but in the circumstances there will be no         p
order as to costs.

v.s.s.                                                      Appeal allowed.