Holding

The Court held that the order of 30 April 1990 must be implemented as directed, applying alternative‑II to the 204/206 employees, and that contempt proceedings focus solely on enforcement, not on re‑examining the order’s correctness.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a contempt petition filed by S. Sarkar and others against the Railway Board and its officials for failing to implement the Court’s order dated 30 April 1990. That order had directed that the 204/206 Assistant Station Masters who had exercised their option before 1983 be treated separately and be granted the benefits that would have been available to them, by applying ‘alternative‑II’ for their placement and promotion, with retroactive effect. The respondents argued that compliance would disturb seniority and could set a precedent for others, but the Court held that a contempt proceeding is concerned only with the enforcement of its own order, not with re‑examining its correctness. The Court reiterated that the order left no ambiguity and ordered the respondents to implement the alternative‑II scheme within two months, granting all benefits retrospectively, and imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the respondents. The contempt petition was disposed of, with the directions to comply and costs awarded to the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 30 April 1990 directing the application of alternative‑II to the 204/206 employees must be complied with despite the respondents' seniority concerns.
Whether a contempt proceeding can be used to question the correctness of the Court’s earlier order.
Whether the exercise of option by directly recruited Assistant Station Masters is compulsory or optional for the purpose of promotion and placement.
Whether failure to implement the Court’s order constitutes contempt of court.

Subjects

contempt of courtimplementation of court orderrailway serviceAssistant Station Masteroption exerciseseniorityalternative IIpromotionretroactive benefits

Judgment

A S. SARKAR & ORS.

v.

R.D. KRISTON, CHAIRMAN RLY. BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI AND ORS.
B [R.M; SAHAI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

MAY 14,1993

Contempt Petition-Exercise of option by direct recruit Assistant Station
Masters-Directions issued by Court on 30th April 1990-Held, contempt peti·
c tion concerned with implementation of Court order, not whether the order passed
by it was correct or not.

The dispute was about whether the exercise of option by Assistant
Station Masters, directly recruited, was a matter of choice or was compul-
sory. The order of this court of JO April 1.?90 inter alia protected the interests
D of the applicants by holding that the 204/206 employees who had opted before
1983 must be entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them
on their options.

The order was not implemented. It was argued for the contemner that
E the order of this court would disturb seniority and may result in extending it
to -many others.

Disposing of the contempt petition, this court,

HELD : 1. The order dt. 30.4.90 left no ambiguity that these employees
F
shall be treated'separately and would be granted the benefit that would ~ave
been available to them. (758-D)
'.

2. The Court in contempt applications is concerned with the implemen-
tation of an order passed by it, and not whether such order is correct or not.
G
3. Neither the submission regarding seniority, nor that it may-extend to
others was raised earlier, and _if raised, they should be deemed to have been
rejected. Even earlier it had been made clear that no one promoted shall be
disturbed~ (758-F)

H
756
S. SARKAR 1·. CHAIRMAN, RL Y. BOARD [R.M. SAHA!, JJ 757

4. Within 2 months, alternative II to be applied to 204/206 employees for A
their placement and promotion. Future promotions may be governed by the
present alter· native. Promotions and all benefits shall be given retro·
spectively. (758-H)

Cost to the applicants of Rs. 5,000
B
CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION :Contempt Petition Nos. 130 & 195
of 1991.

IN

Civil Appeal No. 2054of1990 c

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.87 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 1263/86.

G.S. Chatterjee and Avijit Bhattacliarjee for the Appellants. D

Dr. Anand Prakash, P. Narasimhan for B.K. Prasad, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
R.M. SAHAI, J. Why the appellants should have been forced to file these
contempt applications forenforcementof the order passed by this Court as far back
as on 30th April 1990 !n Civil Appeal No.2054 of 1990, is not without reason.

Grievance of the applicants is that despite clear findings recorded by this F
Court, opposite parties are going back on it and persisting in the implementation
of the order in a manner which frustrates the entire purpose for which the applicants
approached this'Court and is a clear violation of directions of this Court issued on
30th April 1990.

Entire dispute centered round the practice of exercising option by Assistant G
St'1tion Masters who were recruited directly. Were they left any choice in the
matter or was it compulsory. It was held by this Court, that various letters issued
made it clear that the option had to be 'exercised at the time of appointment and
where no option was exercised it was deemed to have been exercised. This Conrt
found that the applicants were those persons who had to exercise option at the time
H
of appointment and their options were irrevocable. Effect of this was that they had
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A to wait till 1983 when restructuring was done. The Court further found that the
cadre of Assistant Station Master/Station Master in South Eastern Railway was
separate and not combined. But the Chief Personnel Officer applied alternative-
!, which under restructuring was to be applied to a zone where combined cadre was
in vogue, as it was acceptable to leaders of the Union and was beneficial to large
number of employees. The Court therefore did not interfere with implementation
B of the alternative-I, but protected the interest of the applicants by holding thus :

"But both tne employees unions have accepted the implementation

-
of the letter of Chief Perso9al Officer as it is beneficial to a majority
of the employees. Therefore, it may not be disturbed. At the same
c time all those 204 employees who had opted before 1983 must be
entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them on
their options."

What remained thereafter, which could not be clear to opposite parties,
cannot be appreciated. The order left no ambiguity that these employees shall be
D
treated separately and would be granted benefit which would have been available
to them. That was possible and obvious if alternative- II was applied to them It was
for this reason that the Court directed to create even additional posts .

.Attempt was made by the learned senior counsel to urge that it shall disturb
E seniority and may result in extending it to many others. We are afraid that this
Court in these applications is .concerned with the implementation of the order
passed by it and not whether the order passed by it was correct or not. Neither of
these submissions were raised earlier and if had been raised, they should be
deemed to have been rejected. Even earlier it had been made clear that no one
promoted shall be disturbed.
F

We, therefore, direct opposite parties to implement the order of this Court in
respect of 204/206 employees by applying alternative-II to them for purposes of
determining their placement and promotion. After their placements and promo-
tions are so determined under alternative- II then they may be governed by the
G present alternative for future promotions. Six months' time was granted in 1990.
The opposite parties have delayed it by nearly two and half years. We direct the
opposite parties to finalise it within two months from today. The promotions and
all benefits shall be given retrospectively. No application for further extension by
opposite parties shall be entertained. Failure to comply with the directions shall not
be treated lightly in future.
H
S. SARKAR 1-. CHAIRMAN, RL Y. BOARD [R.M. SAHAI, J] 759

We are not taking any action in the circumstances for the present. Th.~ A
contempt applications are disposed of accordingly. But the respondents shall pay
a sum of Rs. 5,000 as costs to the applicants.

U.R. Contempt Petition disposed q.

-