SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC & ORS.versusM. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.

                     [2014) 4 S.C.R. 27


 SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC & ORS.                       A
                               v.
           M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 2014)
                     FEBRUARY 4, 2014
                                                                   B
      [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
               SHIVA KIRTI SINGH JJ.]

     CONTEMPT OF COURT:
                                                                   c
      Contempt petition - Scope of - High Court in contempt
jurisdiction directing creation of supernumerary posts - Held:
 Courts must not travel beyond the four comers of the order
 which is alleged to have been flouted nor should it enter into
questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the          0
judgment or the order violation of which is alleged - No order
 or direction supplemental to what has been already
 expressed should be issued by the court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law -- Courts must
act with utmost restraint before compelling the executive to       E
create additional posts - In the instant case, the impugned
direction of High Court for creation of supernumerary posts
of Marine Assistant Radio Operator amounts to
supplementing the initial order passed in the writ petition --
 The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of justification -       F
 Whether the direction issued would be justified by way of
review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction does not require
consideration in the instant case - An alternative direction had
been issued by High Court in writ petition and appellants have
complied with the same - They cannot be, therefore,
understood to have acted in willful disobedience of the said       G
order -- Order passed in contempt petition as well as
impugned order passed in contempt appeal are set aside.

    The respondents were engaged as Radio Operators
                              27                                   H
    28      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
  Ltd. (Corporation). By a notification dated 08.09.1994
  issued u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
  Abolition) Act, 1970, employment of contract labour in
  various works in the Corporation, including the work of
B Radio Operators was prohibited. Writ petitions were filed
  seeking a direction to the Corporation to treat the
  contract Radio Operators at par with the regular Marine
  Assistant Radio Operators. The stand of the Corporation,
  inter alia, was that with the advancement of technology
c there was no necessity for the service of Radio
  Operators. Ultimately, by order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P. No.
  21518 of 2000, the single Judge of the High Court directed
  the Corporation to absorb the respondent-workers as
  Marine Assistant Radio Operator and, if there were no
0 such posts, to give them the scale of pay as applicable
  to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators. The appeals of
  the Corporation were dismissed by the Division Bench
  of the High Court as also by the Supreme Court. Alleging
  non-implementation and disobedience of the order dated
E 2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 as affirmed by
  the orders in appeals, a contempt petition was filed before
  the High Court wherein the impugned direction for
  creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant
  Radio Operator was made by the order dated 19.1.2012.
  The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of the
F High Court by the impugned order.

         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The power vested in the High Courts as
G well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and
  rare power available both under the Constitution as well
  as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power
  which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the
  individual charged with commission of contempt. The
H very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the courts
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M. 29
          GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN
to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. A
Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners
of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter
into questions that have not been dealt with or decided
in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged.
Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or B
order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into
account for the purpose of consideration as to whether
there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the
same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea
of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure c
that while considering a contempt plea the power
available to the court in other corrective jurisdictions like
review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or
direction supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the court while exercising D
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested
in the court. [para 15] [39-E-H; 40-A-C]

     Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath
Ganguly and Others 2002 (3) SCR 913 = (2002) 5 SCC 352, E
V./IA.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another (2004)
13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction
Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others and
Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV 2008 (3)
          =
SCR 1137 (2006) 1 sec 613 - relied on                      F

    Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United
Labour Union and Others 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 579 = (1997)
9 SCC 377; Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National
Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 343 G
= (2001) 7 sec 1 - cited.
     1.2 In the instant case, the direction of the High Court
for creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant
Radio Operator in contempt jurisdiction cannot be
countenanced. Not only the courts must act with utmost H
    30       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A  restraint before compelling the executive to create
   additional posts, the impugned direction virtually
  amounts to supplementing the directions contained in
  .the order of the High Court dated 02.8.2006. The alterative
   direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could very well have
B been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation
  with regard to the necessity of keeping in existence the
   cadre itself in view of the operational needs of the
   Corporation. [para 16] [40-E-G]

       1.3 The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of
C justification. Whether the direction issued would be
  justified by way of review or in exercise of any other
  jurisdiction is an aspect that does not require
  consideration in the instant case. Of relevance is the fact
  that an alternative direction had been issued by the High
D Court by its order dated 02.08.2006 and the appellants,
  as officers of the Corporation, have complied with the
  same. They cannot be, therefore, understood to have
  acted in willful disobedience of the said order of the High
  Court. The second direction having been complied with
E by the appellants, the order dated 02.08.2006 passed in
  W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands duly implemented.
  Consequently, the order dated 19.01.2012 passed in the
  contempt petition as well as the impugned order dated
  11.07.2012 passed in contempt appeal are set aside. [para
F 16] [41-C-F]
                       Case Law Reference:
         1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 579      cited         para 4

G        2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 343      cited         para 4
         2002 (3) SCR 913             relied on     para 15
         (2004) 13 sec 610            relied on     para 15
         2008 (3) SCR 1137            relied on     para 15
H
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M.                 31
          GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.              A
1816 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2012 of the
High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No. 2 of 2012.

     Goolam E. Vahanvati. A.G., P.P. Rao, Krishnamurthy, V.N.    B
Koura, Paramjeet Benipal, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf (for Arputham,
Aruna & Co.), Santosh Krishnan, Deeptakirti Verma, V.
Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Jyoti Prashar for the appearing
parties.
                                                                 c
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in
exercise of its contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary    D
posts, this appeal has been filed by the respondents in the
contempt proceeding.

    3. Shorn off unnecessary details the core facts that would
need a recital are enumerated hereinbelow.                       E
     The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as
Radio Operators on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"),
a Public Sector Undertaking, inter alia, engaged in on-shore
and off-shore oil and natural gas exploration. By a notification F
dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment of
contract labour in various works in the Corporation, including
the work of Radio Operators, was prohibited. A Writ Petition
bearing No. 15211 of 1991 seeking a direction to the G
Corporation to treat the contract Radio Operators at par with
the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators was pending
before the High Court at that point of time. Subsequently, the
union representing 56 number of contract employees engaged
as Radio Operators instituted another Writ Petition i.e. W.P. H
    32         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   No. 1178 of 1996 seeking the same relief.

         4. In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs.
    United Labour Union and Others1 this Court took the view that .
    upon abolition of contract labour the persons engaged on
8   contract basis became the employees of the principal employer
    and hence entitled to regularization under the principal
    employer. The said view has been subsequently dissented
    from, though prospectively, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. &
    Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Worl<ers & Ors. 2 • Following
C   the decision of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and
    Others (supra) the writ petitions were allowed by a learned
    Single Judge of the Madras High Court by Order dated
    29.01.1997. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Corporation
    against the said order was dismissed. The matter was carried
    to this Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.20951 of 1997 which was
D   disposed on 12.1.1998 with the following operative direction.

          "Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General
          appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that those of
          the 56 workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of
E         the appropriate regulations, as in force at the relevant time,
          shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air
          India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs. United Labour
          Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377. In view of this statement
          the SLP does not survive and is disposed of."
F
         5. Following the aforesaid order of this Court in the special
    leave petition the respondents herein were absorbed as "Junior
    Helpers" with effect from 29.1.1997 by an order dated 2.4.1998.
    Their pay was fixed at the bottom of the basic pay of Class IV
    employees of the Corporation. It may be noticed, at this stage,
G   that the respondents being employees of the Southern Region
    of the Corporation were posted at Karaikal and Rajamundry
    stations.

    1.   (1997) 9 sec 377.
H   2.   c2001) 1sec1.
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M.                    33
  GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
     6. It appears that thereafter a Committee was constituted      A
by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas which recommended
that the Corporation is bound to absorb all the contract Radio
Operators who had the requisite qualification in the post of
Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994
and in the pay scale applicable to the said post as on 8.9.1994.    B

     7. As the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee
was not being given effect to, the present respondents instituted
another proceeding before the High Court i.e. Writ Petition No.
21518 of 2000 seeking a direction for their absorption as           C
Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994.
Specifically, it must be taken note of that in the aforesaid writ
proceeding the Corporation had, inter alia, contended that there
was no requirement of Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the
Southern Region Business Centre (SRBC) or other regions of
the Corporation as there were no adequate off-shore                 D
operations. It was also contended that on account of the
upgraded technology available, there is also no necessity for
the service of a Radio Operator as with the advancement of
technology the users themselves were in a position to operate
the system without the assistance of an operator.                   E

     8. By order dated 2.8.2006 the writ petition was disposed
of with the following findings and operative directions:

    "32. Therefore, considering the entire facts and
                                                                    F
    circumstances of the case in the light of the report of the
    committee, recommendation made by the Ministry of
    Petroleum and Natural Gas and the judgment of the
    Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case,
    cited supra, I am of the considered view that the
    absorption of the petitioners by the respondent corporation     G
    as Junior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/- old basic
    bottom of Class IV cadre was not fair and proper and
    certainly not in strict compliance of the undertaking given
    by the respondent corporation before the Supreme Court.
    On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the         H
    34        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A        petitioners are entitled to be absorbed as Marine Assistant
         Radio Operators.

         33. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.
         The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as
8        Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from
         8.9.1994 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour
         and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-1999 of the
         Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of
         India, to the first respondent and the approval of the
         competent authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-
c        9-1999 to the third and fourth respondents with all monetary
         benefits and all other attendant benefits. If for any reason,
         there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or
         there are no sufficient posts are available in the cadre of
         Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate all the
D        petitioners, the respondents are directed to give "pay
         protection" to the petitioners and sanction them the scale
         of pay as applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio
         Operators as recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum
         and Natural Gas."
E
       9. The aforesaid order dated 2.8.2006 was challenged by
  the Corporation in Writ Appeal No. 1290 of 2006 which was
  dismissed on 19.12.2006 with a direction to the Corporation
  to implement the order of the learned Single Judge dated
F 2.8.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
  of a copy of the order. Two other writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos.
  27500 of 2006 and 27529 of 2006 seeking similar relief(s)
  were also allowed by a separate order of the learned Single
  Judge dated 4.4.2007. The aforesaid orders were challenged
G before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 765 of 2008 and 766-
  767 of 2008 which were heard alongwith Transfer Petition (C)
  No. 889 of 2007 which was filed by similarly situated persons.
  By order dated 30.10.2009 all the civil appeals and the transfer
  petition were dismissed by this Court with the following
  directions :
H
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M.                    35
  GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

     "We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on         A
     behalf of the parties.

            Learned counsel appearing for the parties have
     taken us to various documents and pleadings. On
     consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances
                                                                    8
     of this case, in our opinion, no case has been made out
     for our interference under our extraordinary jurisdiction
     under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. These
     appeals are accordingly dismissed.

           However, as prayed for by the learned senior             C
     counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, we direct
     the appellant Oil & Natural Gas Corporation to implement
     the orders within three months.

           Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 889 of 2007
                                                                    D
            In view of our order passed in the Civil Appeals
     above-mentioned, no orders are necessary in the transfer
     petition. The transfer petition is disposed of."

      10. Alleging non-implementation and disobedience of the       E
order dated 2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 as
affirmed by order dated 19.12.2.906 in Writ Appeal No. 1290
of 2006 and order dated 30.10.2'009 passed in Civil Appeal
No.765 of 2008, Contempt Petition (C) No. 161 of 2010 was
filed before the High Court wherein the impugned direction for      F
creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio
Operator was made by the order dated 19.1.2012. The said
order has been affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court
by the impugned order dated 11.7.2002. Aggrieved, the
present appeal has been filed.
                                                                    G
    11. At this stage, it may be necessary to take note of two
other Contempt Petition Nos. 141 of 2010 and 343 of 2010
which had been instituted in the High Court against the similar
order dated 4.4.2007 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 27500 and
                                                                    H
    36          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 4 S.C.R


A 27529 of 2006 which order had also been affirmed by this Court
  in the connected civil appeals i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.766-767
  of 2008, as already noticed. Regard must also be had to
  Contempt Petition (C) No. 130 of 2010 filed before this Court
  by similarly situated persons in respect of the order dated
B 30.10.2009 passed in Transfer Petition (C) No. 889 of 2007.

       12. Insofar as Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 141 and 343 of
  2010 are concerned, the same has been dismissed by the High
  Court by its order dated 31.8.2010 holding that no case of
  commission of contempt is made out. Contempt Petition No.
C 130 of 2010 before this Court was ordered to be closed in view
  of the averments made in an affidavit dated 9.3.2011 filed on
  behalf of the Corporation. Paras 6 and 7 of the said affidavit
  would require to be taken note of and are being extracted
  below.
D
         "6. I say that since there is no vacant post in the cadre of
         Assistant Marine Radio Operator in the Southern Region
         (to which region the Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 765-
         767 of 2008 bafore this Hon'ble Court belonged and to
E        which region the Petitioners in the present Contempt
         Petition belong) and, no vacancy in the post of Assistant
         Marine Radio Operator in the Southern Region has arisen
         after the order and judgment dated 2.8.2006 of the Ld.
         Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000, the
         respondents in the said Appeal could not be
F
         accommodated in the post of Assistant Marine Radio
         Operator. Consequently, until such vacancies arise and, in
         accordance with the direction issued by the Ld. Single
         Judge of the High Court (and upheld by this Hon'ble Court),
         Respondent No. 1took the following steps :
G
          (i)    deployed the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765/
                 2008, who formed a separate protected class, as
                 Supernumerary Helpers in the scale of pay
                 applicable to Assistant Marine Radio Operators. so
H                that they are not rendered idle.
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M. 37
  GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
      (ii)    gave "pay protection" to the said respondents for A
              the pay drawn by Assistant Marine Radio Operator
              from the date of their absorption, i.e. 08.09.1994.

      (iii)   paid them the difference between the "protected
              pay" and the pay previously drawn by them as
                                                                  8
              Junior Helpers from the date of their absorption on
              08.09.1994.
      7. I say that even as on date there is no vacancy in the post
      of Assistant Marine Radio Operator (Southern Region).
      However, since the Petitioners herein have sought to be C
      treated at par with the Respondents in Civil Appeal No.
      765 of 2008, Respondent No. 1 is prepared to, in order
      to give a quietus to the matter extend to the Petitioners the
      same treatment and benefits aforesaid extended to the
      Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765 of 2008 with effect D
      from the date of their absorption i.e. with effect from
      18.2.1998, as has been prayed for by the Petitioners in
      the Writ Petition filed by them in the High Court of
      Judicature of Andhra Pradesh."
                                                                    E
      13. The question that arises in the present appeal, in the
backdrop of the facts noted above, is whether the appellants
who are the officers of the Corporation and had complied with
the alternative direction contained in the order dated 2.8.2006
passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 21518 of 2000 would still be F
liable for commission of contempt and the only way in which
the appellants can purge themselves of the contempt allegedly
committed is by creation of supernumerary posts of Marine
Assistant Radio Operators. An answer to the above question
centres around the contours of the power of the Court while
exercising its contempt jurisdiction.                               G

    14. We have heard Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned
Attorney General for the appellants and Shri P.P. Rao, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
                                                                   H
    38       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A         15. The learned Attorney General has urged that the
    question of the very necessity of having/continuing the posts of
    Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the Corporation was a
    live issue in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000 as the Corporation
    had contended that the work requirement of the Corporation
B   did not justify the continuation of the post in the cadre of Marine
    Assistant Radio Operators, particularly, in the SRCB where the
    Corporation was not engaged in any off- shore operation. It is
    urged that in the light of the stand taken by the Corporation,
    the option/alternative direction of granting parity of pay to the
    respondents was issued. It is not in dispute that the Corporation
c   had complied with the said direction. In a situation where the
    operational requirements of the Corporation did not justify the
    retention of the posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators any
    further, its officers cannot be faulted for not creating
    supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators and
D   instead creating posts of Junior Helpers to accommodate the
    respondents and thereafter giving them protection/parity of pay
    in terms of the option granted by the High Court. The learned
    Attorney has further submitted that there being no direction for
    creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the
E   order dated 2.8.2006 it was beyond the power of the learned
    Judge, hearing the Contempt Petition, to issue such a direction.
    The said error, being apparent, ought to have been corrected
    in the appeal filed before the High Court. The order of the
    Division Bench dated 11.7.2012 impugned in the present
F   appeal is, therefore, open to interference in the present appeal.

         14. On the other hand Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior
    counsel appearing for the respondents has ,contended that an
    obligation to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant
G   Radio Operator is mandated by the very terms of the Order
    dated 02.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000.
    Shri Rao has contended that when supernumerary posts of
    Junior Helpers have been created and parity of pay with the
    higher post has been granted it is difficult to conceive why
    supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator were
H
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M.                       39
  GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
 not created in order to fully comply with the Order of the High       A
Court. It is also pointed out that it is evident from the provisions
of the relevant Regulations governing the service conditions of
the respondents i.e. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. i.e.
Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, that
had the respondents been absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio            B
Operators they would have earned promotions under the
Regulations which avenues stand closed due to their
absorption in the post of Junior Helper. Shri Rao has also
referred to the correspondence exchanged between the
Corporation and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,             c
Government of India, which is available on record, to show that
there existed/exists a cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator
and the strength of the cadre depends on the necessity of the
operations of the Corporation. The cadre strength is flexible
depending on the job requirement, it is urged. Shri Rao,
                                                                       0
therefore, has contended that the action taken by the appellants
in purported compliance of the Court's Order dated 02.08.2006
would still make them liable for contempt which can be purged
only by creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator,
as directed by the High Court.
                                                                       E
      15. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this
Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power
available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected,
could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with             F
commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest
of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than
not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self
determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in         G
respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are          H
    40         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought
  to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
  whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of
  the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea
  of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that
B while considering a contempt plea the power available to the
  Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is
  not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what
  has been already expressed should be issued by the Court
  while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law;
c such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions
  vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles
  would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents
  cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another
  vs. Tarak Nath Gangu/y and Others3 , V.M.Manohar Prasad
D vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another4, Bihar Finance Service
  House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam
  Goswami and Others5 and Union of India and Others vs.
  Subedar Devassy PV6.

        16. Applying the above settled principles to the case
E before us, it is clear that the direction of the High Court for
  creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio
  Operator cannot be countenanced. Not only the Courts must act
  with utmost restraint before compelling the executive to create
  additional posts, the impugned direction virtually amounts to
F supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High
  Court dated 02.8.2006. The alterative direction i.e. to grant
  parity of pay could very well have been occasioned by the stand
  taken by the Corporation with regard to the necessity of keeping
  in existence the cadre itself in view of the operational needs of
G the Corporation. If despite the specific stand taken by the
  Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the view that
    3.   (2002) 5 sec 352.
    4.   c2004) 13 sec 010.
    5.   c2ooa) 5 sec 339.
H 6. '(2000) 1 sec 613.
 SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M. 41
   GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
 the respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant               A
 Radio Operator nothing prevented the High Court from issuing
 a specific direction to create supernumerary posts of Marine
 Assistant Radio Operator. The same was not done. If that be
so, the direction to create supernumerary posts at the stage
of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be understood         B
to be an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.
The argument that such a direction is implicit in the order dated
02.08.2006 is self defeating. Neither, is such a course of action
open to balance the equities, i.e. not to foreclose the
promotional avenues of the petitioners, as vehemently urged           c
by Shri Rao. The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of
justification. Whether the direction issued would be justified by
way of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an aspect
that does not concern us in the present case. Of relevance is
the fact that an alternative direction had been issued by the High    0
Court by its order dated 02.08.2006 and the appellants, as
officers of the Corporation, have complied with the same. They
cannot be, therefore, understood to have acted in willful
disobedience of the said order of the Court. All that was
required i.n terms of the second direction having been complied       E
with by the appellants, we are of the view that the order dated
02.08.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands duly
implemented. Consequently, we set aside the Order dated
19.01.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No. 161of2010, as
well 'as the impugned order dated 11.07 .2012 passed in
Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2012 and allow the present appeal.            F

R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.