Supreme Court of India
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDAversusSHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAR
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 536
- Decided
- 22 November 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The Court held that although the appellant had a case for contempt, no purpose would be served by punishing officials; instead, he is entitled to monetary benefits and a suitable post, but no further posting direction is warranted due to his age.
Summary
Sri Debendranath Nanda, an Acharya Pandit, was repeatedly adjusted and then withdrawn from a government post, leading to a 14-year delay in his appropriate posting. Despite several orders from the State Government and the High Court directing his consideration in light of the Kabita Manjari Kar case, the Department failed to implement the orders, prompting the appellant to file contempt proceedings, which the High Court later dropped on the ground of his age. The Supreme Court examined whether the contempt petition could be sustained and whether the appellant was entitled to a posting or monetary compensation. It held that, given the appellant had now reached the age of 60, a positive direction for posting was no longer feasible, but he was entitled to monetary benefits equivalent to the relief granted in the Kabita Manjari Kar case. Consequently, the Court directed the Higher Education Department to assign a suitable post and provide back‑dated monetary benefits from 21‑07‑1999, and dismissed the contempt action as unnecessary.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in dropping the contempt proceedings on the basis of the appellant's age.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a posting or monetary compensation under the earlier High Court orders and the precedent set by Kabita Manjari Kar v. State of Orissa.
- Whether punitive action against erring officials is appropriate when the appellant's grievance can be remedied by monetary benefits.
Subjects
contempt of courtservice lawgovernment employee postingage limitmonetary compensationadministrative delayjudicial direction
Judgment
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 22
A SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA
v.
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 8206 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 22, 2012.
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
c Contempt proceedings - Order of State Government to
adjust the appellant an Acharya Pandit in a Government
Aided Institution against existing vacancy of Head Pandit in
Government Sanskrit Institution - Not implemented by
Department - High Court directing to consider the case of
D appellant following an earlier judgment - Non-compliance of
- Contempt proceedings - Dropped by High Court observing
that the appellant had completed the age of 58 years - Held:
Court is fully satisfied that for one reason or the other, the
appellant was dragged for nearly 14 years and by efflux of
time, he has reached the age of 60 years - Therefore, as on
E date, there cannot be any positive direction for posting him
at the appropriate place - Though the appellant has made
out a case for contempt, no purpose will be served by taking
action against the erring officials - Instead, appellant can be
adequately compensated by way of monetary benefits -
F Accordingly, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department is directed to assign suitable post to
the appellant and corresponding monetary benefits w.e.f.
21.07.1999 - Service law.
G The appellant, whose promotion as Acharya Pandit
was approved by the State Government by its order dated
6.12.1994 w.e.f. 31.~.1987, was found surplus in the
Government Aided Institution and, consequently, by State
Government's order dated 16.3.1995, he was adjusted in
H 22
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 23
SHEKHAR KUMAR
the vacancy of Head Pandit in Government Sanskrit A
Institution. The appellant represented before the State
Government for his adjustment against the existing
vacant post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Sahitya. During the
pendency of the said representation, the State
Government, by order dated 6.6.1996, cancelled the order B
dated 16.3.1995 and directed the appellant to join his
former place of posting in the Aided Institution. The
appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order before the
State Administrative Tribunal and ultimately filed a writ
petition before the High Court, which by order dated c
21.7.1999 directed the State Government to consider the
case of the appellant following the judgment in Kabita
Manjari Kar's case (decided on 27.4.1995). However, in
spite of several rounds of litigation, the order dated
21.7.1997 was not complied with and ultimately the D
appellant filed contempt proceedings, which were
dropped by the High Court observing that the appellant
had completed 58 years of age and the issue of his
continuance beyond 58 years could not be considered
in contempt proceedings.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The record shows that at the Government
level the grievance of the appellant was properly taken
care of and it is only at the Department level, the case of F
the appellant was dragged without giving him the posting
at the appropriate place as directed by the Government.
This Court is fully satisfied that for one reason or the
other, the appellant was dragged for nearly 14 years and
by efflux of time, now he has reached the age of 60 years, G
therefore, as on date, there cannot be any positive
direction for posting him at the appropriate place. [para
10] [33-G-H; 34-A]
1.2. However, taking note of all the earlier orders of
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A the High Court, undertaking given by the standing
counsel, affidavit filed by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Government and the decision of the Minister,
School and Mass Education Department, this Court is
satisfied that the appellant is entitled for equivalent
B monetary benefits as rightly observed by the State
Government (Minister concerned) about the appellant's
entitlement, posting and other benefits at par with the
case of Kabita Manjari Kar and the interpretation of the
Department is unacceptable. [para 10] [34-B-C]
c Kabita Manjari Kar vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No.
1667 of 1992 disposed of on 27.04.1995) - referred to
1.3. Though the appellant has made out a case for
contempt, no purpose will be served by taking action
D against the erring officials, instead the appellant can be
adequately compensated by way of monetary benefits.
Accordingly, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department is directed to assign suitable post
to the appellant and corresponding monetary benefits
E from the date on which the Department was asked to
consider, i.e., 21.07.1999, and settle the same within a
period of 3 months. [para 11] [34-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8206 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.7.2011 of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Conte. No. 923 of 2010.
Ambika Das, Rekha Pandey for the Appellant.
G
Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 25
SHEKHAR KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order A
dated 21.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack in CONTC No. 923 of 2010 whereby ' the Division
Bench dropped the contempt proceeding filed by the appellant
herein against the Respondent herein.
B
3. Brief Facts:
(a) On 03.02.1976, Sri Debendranath Nanda - the
appellant herein was- originally appointed as Sanskrit
Pandit (Shastri Pandit) in Adarsa f.yurveda Vidyalaya,
Cuttack, a Government Aided Institution. The appellant C
herein got promoted to the rank of Acharya Pandit w.e.f.
31.01.1987 in order to teach students of Acharya classes.
His promotion to the post of Acharya Pandit was approved
by the State Government vide Order dated 06.12.1994
w.e.f. 31.01.1987. D
(b) In-the year 1984, the State Government took a policy
decision to introduce 10+2+3 pattern of education in
Sanskrit Institutions functioning in the State of Orissa.
Accordingly, Upa-shastri (+2 standard) was introduced in E
Achar1a Institutions.
(c) In the year 1987, the State Government introduced
Shastri courses (+3 degree course) in the Sanskrit
Institutions in the State of Orissa and it was also decided
that the Acharya Cou~ses which is equivalent to M.A. F
Degree will be taught only in the Departments of Sanskrit
University and the said decision was to be implemented
w.e.f. Academic Session 1987-1988. In pursuance of the
same, the State Government, vide order dated
19.10.1987, decided that the institutions where Acharya G
Courses were taught up to the Academic Session 1986-
87 and the teachers having Acharya qualification which is
equivalent to M.A. Degree will be adjusted against the post
of Lecturers which will be created for Upa-Shastri and
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A Shastri courses in those institutions according to the
staffing pattern prescribed by the Government.
(d) In the year 1988, Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwa
Vidyalaya (Sanskrit University) took a decision to abolish
B Acharya Courses from the Sanskrit Institutions and it was
decided that the same will be taught at the University level
only. In pursuance of the said decision, Acharya Courses
were abolished from Sanskrit Institutions in the State of
Orissa w.e.f. 1991. Consequently, the State Government
took a decision to adjust surplus Acharya Pandits teaching
c Acharya Courses as Sanskrit Lecturers in Lipa-Shastri
and Shastri Institutions run by the State Government or in
the Aided Institutions imparting 10+2+3 education in
Sanskrit. Since the appellant herein was found to be
surplus in the Adarsa Ayurveda Vidyalaya, Cuttack, the
D State Government, vide order dated 16.03.1995, adjusted
him against the existing vacancy of Head Pandit in
Government Sanskrit Institution, Baripada.
(e) The appellant herein represented before the State
E Government for his adjustment against the existing vacant
post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Sahitya. Vide communication
dated 29.09.1995, Addi. Secretary to Government of
Orissa recommended his case to the Director, Secondary
Education, Orissa for adjustment in the light of the order
F dated 19.10.1987 against the said vacancy. During the
pendency of the said representation, vide Order dated
06.06.1996, the State Government cancelled the order
dated 16.03.1995 and the appellant was directed to join
his former place of posting at Adarsa Ayurveda Vidyalaya,
G
Cuttack and the arrear dues payable on account of salary
for the intervening period from 04.05.1995 to the date of
joining in Government Sanskrit Institution, Baripada to the
dale of joining in Adarsa Ayurveda Vidyalaya, Cuttack had
to be paid by the latter from out of the provisions of grant-
in-aid and also that the above period will be treated as
H
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 27
SHEKHAR KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
service spent on duty in Adarsha Ayurveda Vidyalaya, A
Cuttack.
(f) Aggrieved by such cancellation and non-payment of
salary for the abovesaid period, the appellant herein filed
Original Application No. 1604 of 1996 before the Orissa B
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar. The Tribunal, vide
order dated 10.07.1996, admitted the O.A. and stayed the
cancellation order dated 06.06.1996 and directed the
appellant herein to continue in the Government Sanskrit
Institution, Baripada. In pursuance of the said interim C
order, the State Government, vide order dated 21.11.1996,
withdrew the departmental letter dated 06.06.1996 and
requested the ·Director, Secondary Education,
Bhubneshwar to· hand over the charge of the office of the
Head Pandit, Government Sanskrit Institution, Baripada to
the appellant herein immediately. The Tribunal, vide final D
order dated 21.05.1997, dismissed OA No. 1604 of 1996
holding that a teacher of the Aided Educational Institutions
cannot be promoted to the post in Government Educational
Institutions even though the State Government is paying
salary of a teacher under direct scheme and cancelled the E
promotion of the appellant herein.
(g) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein
filed a petition being OJC No. 8397 of 1997 before the
High Court. By order dated 21.07.1999, the High Court F
disposed off the petition directing the State Government
to consider the case of the appellant herein following the
judgment rendered in a similar case, viz., .Smt. Kabita
Manjari Kar vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No. 1667
of 1992 disposed of on 27.04.1995) of the same High G
Court.
(h) After several rounds of litigation including filing of
various applications before the High Court for the
implementation of its order dated 21.07.1997, various
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A communication with the State Government, Department of
School and Mass Education, filing of contempt
proceedings before the High Court and lastly, the High
Court, in CONTC No. 923 of 2010, by impugned order
dated 21.07.2011, dropped the contempt proceeding
B against the respondent herein on the ground that the
appellant herein has completed 58 years of age and the
dispute as to whether the appellant herein has retired from
service or has to continue beyond 58 years cannot be
decided in a contempt proceeding.
c (i) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein has
preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition
before this Court.
4. Heard Ms. Ambika Das, learned counsel for the
D appellant and Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the
respondent.
5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
the appellant has made out a case for any relief pursuant to
E the earlier orders of the High Court and decision at the level of
the Government? Apart from this, we have to consider whether
the High Court was justified in dropping the contempt
proceeding filed by the appellant?
6. According to the appellant, though the State
F Government approved him in the post of Acharya Pandit, due
to policy decision, he was found surplus and by order dated
16.03.1995, he was adjusted as Lecturer in Government
Sanskrit Institution, Baripada (A Degree College) but the said
order was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 06.06.1996.
G Challenging the same, the appellant filed an application being
OA No. 1604of1996 before the State Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneshwar. The Tribunal, vide order dated 21.05.1997,
dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein. When
this order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court
H
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 29
SHEKHAR KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
by filing a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 8397 of 1997, the A
same was disposed of by order dated 21.07.1997 directing the
State Government to consider the case of the appellant
following the judgment rendered in a similar case, viz., Smt.
Kabita Manjari Kar (supra). It is the grievance of the appellant
that in spite of such direction and subsequent orders reiterating B
the same as well as the decision of the State Government
(Minister concerned), School & Mass Education, who
considered his case and directed to give him a post equivalent
to that he was holding at Government Sanskrit Institution,
Baripada, he was neither given necessary posting nor paid any c
salary for the same which necessitated him for filing contempt
petition bearing CONTC No. 923 of 2010 before the High Court.
By impugned order dated 21.07.2011, the High Court disposed
of the contempt petition by passing the following order:
"21.07.2011 D
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
The dispute now arose as to whether the petitioner E
has retired from service or he has to continue beyond 58
years cannot be decided in a contempt proceeding.
The contempt proceeding is according dropped.
Sd/- B.P. Das,J. F
Sd/- SK Mishra,J."
Questioning the same, the appellant has approached this
Court. Inasmuch as in the earlier part of our order, we have
narrated the grievance of the appellant, various orders, G
directions etc., there is no need to repeat the same once again.
7. The claim of the appellant is mainly on the basis of the
order dated 21.07.1999 passed by the High Court in OJC No.
8397 of 1997 filed by him which reads as under:
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A "IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
ORDER SHEET
O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997
Debendranath Nanda ....... Petitioner
B Versus
State of Orissa & Ors. ....... Respondents
ORDER
c 21.07.1999
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned
counsel for State.
We dispose of the writ application with a direction
D to opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's
case in the light of decision of this Court in Smt.
Kabitamanjari Kar vs. State of Orissa and Others (OJC
No. 1667 of 1992 disposed of on 27.4.1995) after
considering its applicability to the facts of petitioner's case.
E Let the exercise be undertaken within three months from
the date of receipt of our order. The question of entitlement
of the petitioner shall be decided while adjudicating his
case in the light of Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar's case referred
to above.
F
Requisites along with copy of the judgment referred
to above shall be filed for communication of our order to
opp. Party nos. 1 and 2 by Monday.
Sd/-
G A. Pasayat, A.C.J.
Sd/-
B.P.Das,J."
It is further seen that even after prolonged correspondence
with the concerned Educational authorities, the said direction
H was not complied with and the appellant again mentioned the
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 31
SHEKHAR KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
matter before the High Court. On 19.07.2005, in the same A
petition, the High Court passed the following order:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTIACK
ORDER SHEET
O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997
B
Debendranath Nanda ....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & Ors. ....... Respondents
ORDER
c
19.07.2005 O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997
Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Rath, learned Addi. Standing counsel for the D
School & Mass Education Department.
Considering the submissions made by both the parties,
this Court directs the learned Addi. Standing counsel to file
an affidavit in compliance of the order passed by this Court E
on 21.7.1999 within ten days.
List this case on 2nd August, 2005.
Sd/- l.M. Quddusi,J.
Sd/- Pradip Mohanty,J." F
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, Sri Gagan .
Kumar Dhal, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of
Orissa, School and Mass Education Department, Orissa,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda filed an affidavit dated 01.08.2005
stating that the order of the High Court dated 21.07 .1999 has G
been complied with. Since according to the appellant, he was
not given proper relief as directed by the High Court, particularly,
in the light of Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar (supra), he made a
representation to the State Government, School & Mass
Education Department. The State Government directed the H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A concerned educational authorities to pass appropriate orders
as directed by the High Court in Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar's case
expeditiously. Even after several years, in spite of the decision
at the level of the Minister, School & Mass Education, according
to the appellant, he was not given proper posting and arrears
B of salary.
8. It is also brought to our notice that the matter pertaining
to the appellant was also placed before the High Court Level
Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat on 19.12.2009 and on
the assurance of the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the
c School and Mass Education Department that the order, if not
complied with, will be complied by the end of May, 2010, the
contempt proceedings were dropped, which reads as under:
"ORDER
D 19.12.2009
This matter is placed before the High Court Level
Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat.
It is undertaken by the learned counsel appearing for the
E School and Mass Education Department that the order
alleged to have been violated, if not complied with as yet,
shall be complied with by the end of May, 2010 failing
which it shall be construed to be contempt of this Court.
A copy of this order shall be furnished to the office of the
F learned Advocate General.
Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application."
G
The appellant has also brought to our notice an affidavit
filed by one Sri Madhusudan Padhi, Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of
Orissa dated 20.07.2010 before the High Court. The following
H
SRI DEBENDRANATH NANDA v. SHRI CHANDRA 33
SHEKHAR KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
information in paragraph 6 of that affidavit is relevant which A
reads as under:
"6. That, it is most humbly submitted that after the said
orders were passed by the Hon'ble Court, this deponent
took sincere steps in the mat1:er and necessary Govt. order 8
has been obtained in posting the petitioner as Lecturer in
Sanskrit in Sri Jaganath Veda Karmak and
Mohavidyalaya, Puri. Relevant (3ovt. orders issued in
favour of the petitioner in posting him as Lecturer in
Sanskrit is appended as Annexure Af1 for kind perusal of C
the Hon'ble Court."
By explaining the same as mentioned above, the officer
tendered unconditional apology for the delay in complying with
the order of the High Court.
D
9. Apart from placing various communications/orders of the
concerned Department, according to the appellant, he could not
get any favourable order from the Department concerned. In
such circumstance, as a last resort, the appellant moved the
High Court by filing Contempt Petition being CONTC. No. 923 E
of 2010. The order dated 21.07.2011, passed by the High Court
in the contempt case dropping the contempt proceeding has
already been extracted in the earlier part of our order.
10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
State and also perused the reply filed on behalf of the F
respondent. The copy supplied by the appellant relating to
various orders issued by the Minister, School and Mass
Education Department to the officer concerned shows that at
the Government level the grievance of the appellant was
properly taken care of and it is only at the Department level, G
the appellant was dragged from here and there by one reason
or the other without giving him the posting at the appropriate
place as directed by the Government. Since we have already
highlighted all the details in the earlier part of our order, there
is no need to traverse the same once again and we are fully H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A satisfied that for one reason or the other, the appellant was
dragged for nearly 14 years and by efflux of time, now he has
reached the age of 60 years, hence, as on date, there cannot
be any positive direction for posting him at the appropriate
place. However, taking note of all the earlier orders of the High
B Court, undertaking given by the standing counsel, affidavit filed
by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government and the
decision of the Minister, School and Mass Education
Department, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled for
equivalent monetary benefits as rightly observed by the State
c Government (Minister concerned) about the appellant's
entitlement, posting and other benefits at par with the case of
Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar (supra) and we hold that the
interpretation of the Department is unacceptable.
D 11. In view of the above discussion, though the appellant
has made out a case for contempt, we feel that no purpose will
be served by taking action against the erring officials, instead
the appellant can be adequately compensated by way of
monetary benefits. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner-
cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bhubaneswar,
E to assign suitable post to the appellant and corresponding
monetary benefits from the date on which the Department was
asked to consider, i.e., 21.07.1999 and settle the same within
a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of
this judgment.
F
12. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
The appellant is entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the
Education Department.
G R.P. Appeal Allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search