Holding

The Government’s order denying the petitioner the promotion and benefits, contrary to the Supreme Court’s direction, amounted to deliberate contempt of court.

Summary

The petitioner, T.R. Dhananjaya, was entitled by a Supreme Court direction to be promoted to Engineer‑in‑Chief and to receive consequential benefits, with the Bangalore City Corporation instructed to create a supernumerary post for him. The Karnataka Government, however, issued an order promoting another officer and limiting Dhananjaya’s benefits to a 24‑day tenure as Superintending Engineer, thereby refusing the promotion. Dhananjaya filed a contempt petition alleging deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order. The Court held that the Government, being a party to the proceedings, could not later claim the petitioner’s ineligibility and that its order was a willful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s direction. No extenuating circumstances were found, and the Government was sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment. The petition was allowed and the Government was directed to implement the resolution creating the supernumerary post with full benefits.

Issues considered

Did the Karnataka Government comply with the Supreme Court’s direction to create a supernumerary Engineer‑in‑Chief post and grant the petitioner the promotion and benefits?
Does the Government’s refusal to implement the promotion constitute contempt of court?
Are there any extenuating circumstances that would justify leniency in sentencing for contempt?

Legislation cited

Contempt of Court Act, 1972

Subjects

Contempt of CourtPromotionSupernumerary postGovernment orderImplementation of Supreme Court directionAdministrative lawPublic serviceDisobedience of court order

Judgment

A T.R. DHANANJAYA
v.
.T. VASUDEVAN

AUGUST 25, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ .]

Contempt of Cowt Act, 1972 :

Se1vice Matter--Cowt orde1ing creation of additional post of Engineer-
C in-Chief to accommodate the petitioner--Govemment granted time to imple-
ment the orde1~Petitioner denied promotion to the post on the ground of his
ineligibili~Eligibility of the petitioner not questioned despite Govemment
being a pa1ty -Held : Action of the respondent constituted deliberate and
wilful disobedience of Cowt's Order--One month simple imprisonment
awarded to the respondent.
D
D was Chief Engineer of Bangalore Municipal Corporation. As a last
resort to salvage him, the Government had revalidated the Rules but was
unsalvaged. He had challenged the judgment of the High Court but by that
time he had retired from service as Chief Engineer. Though he was
unsuccessful, while declining to inter:fere with the order of the High Court,
E this Court directed that he would be treated as employee of the corporation
for purpose of all retiral benefits. The petitioner who was. competing with
D and became successful, apprehending that the benefits given to D by
virtue of this Court's order might be construed by the Government to mean
denial of the rights flowing to him under the order passed by the High
F Court and by this Court, and sought protection of his rights, and prayed
for clarification of the order as he was not made a party to the appeal.
This Court clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits
flowing from those or.ders. To effectuate the said rights the Corporation
might create supernumerary post for the period in question and directed
the State Government to issue necessary orders in this behalf.
G
The Government directed the Corporation to implement the said
order of this Court. The Corporation accordingly created a super-
numerary post of an Additional Chief Engineer to be filled by promotion
of the petitioner. However, the Government directed the Corporation to
H promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer for a period
64
T.R. DHANANJAYA v. J. VASUDEVAN· 65

... ~
of 24 days only. A
Aggrieved by the Government's order the petitioner preferred the
present contempt petition.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that he was entitled to
promotion as an Engineer-in-Chief; and that the denial thereof was a B
deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court.
'
~
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the petitioner was
not eligible for the post of Chief Engineer; that he was eligible for conse-
quential benefits only for 24 days as superintending Engineer; and that the
action of the Government does not amount to contempt of Court. c
Allowing the petition, this Court

HELD : 1. The Corporation created an additional post of Engineer-
in-Chief pursuant tG the order of this Court and directed that in the post
thus created the petitioner be accommodated with consequential benefits.
D
When the matter had remained unattended by the Government and this
contempt petition was filed, the Government had requested this Court for
time for implementation of the direction, which was granted. [71-B-C]

2. What remained for the respondent was only implementation of the E
order passed by this Court in furtherance of the action taken thereunder
by the Corporation. It is now clear that instead of implementing the order,
an attempt has been made to circumvent the same and deny the benefits to
the petitioner. The petitioner is a Corporation employee and the stand of
the Government appears to be to give benefit to their employees. So, an
attempt has now been made to get into the rule position and to find whether F
the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. It is now
stated that according to the rules the petitioner would be eligible only as
Superintending Engineer and not as Chief Engineer. When direction was
given, Government was a party to the proceedings and it was never brought G
to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner was not eligible. [71-D-F]

3.1. It is seen that all through the Government was a party. It was not
~
--..._. brought to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner was not eligible
for promotion, in contradistinction with D, or any other. When the claim
inter-se had been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had become H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A final and that of D was negatived, it is no longer open to the Government
to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of the orders passed by this
...
court by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimise legal
alibi to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. Thus it is clear that
the concerned otlicers have deliberately made concerted effort to disobey
the order passed by this Court to deny thi! benefits to the petitioner. So,
B there is no option but to hold that the respondent has deliberately and
wilfully, with an intention to defeat the orders of this Court, passed the
impugned order. [71-G-H; 72-A-B]

3.2. There is no extenuating circumstance at all and nothing could
have reasonably stood in the way of the petitioner to get appointed to the
c supernumerary post of Engineer-in-Chief created by the Corporation. It is
only the defiant attitude of the Government which denied him that post.
Accordingly the respondent is found guilty of committing contempt and is
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
[72-G-H; 73-A-B]
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cohtempt Petition No. 234
of 1994.

IN

Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1993.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated the 16th July, 1991 of the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Application No. 1443
of 1991.

Rama Jois, Ranganatha Jois and P. Mahale for the Appellant.
F
Santosh Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja, Gopal Singh (N.P.), M. Veerappa
and M.T. George (N.P.) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G One D. Dasegowda, the then Superintending Engineer, a government
employee on deputation to Bangalore Municipal Corporation (for short,
'the Corporation') as Chief Engineer, was appellant in Civil Appeal No.
797 of 1993. As a l~st resort to salvage him, the Government had
revalidated the Rules but was unsalvaged. He had challenged the judgment
--
H of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka but by that time he

,,
T.R. DHANANJAYA v. J. VASUDEVAN 67

... had retired from service as Chief Engineer. Though he was unsuccessful, A
while declining to interfere with the order of the Division Bench of the
High Court, this Court directed that he would be treated as employee of
the Corporation for purpose of all retiral benefits. Subsequently, the
petitioner who was competing with Dasegowda and became successful,
filed I.A. No. 3 in this Court, apprehending that the benefits given to
B
Dasegowda by 'virtue of this Court's order dated February 19, 1993 in Civil
Appeal No. 797 of 1993 might be construed by the Government to mean
denial of the rights flowing to him under the order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court and by this Court, and sought protection of his
rights, and prayed for clarification of the order as he was not made a party
to the appeal. The order dated March 19, 1984 made in his favour by the c
Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 20147-48/79 was upheld by
this Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7317-19/84. Pursuant thereto, by order dated
July 26, 1993, passed in the aforesaid I.A., this Court clarified thus:

"The applicant, Dhananjaya, apprehends that by virtue of the
orders passed by this Court in the above appeal, it may be con- D
strued that h" is not entitled to the benefits arising out of the orders
passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court as
confirmed by this Court referred to above. It is clarified that this
Court did not intend to upset the rights given to the applicant-
Dhananjaya by virtue of the order passed by this Court in the above E
appeal. He will be entitled to all the benefits flowing from those
orders. Under these circumstances, whatever rights that have been
accrned to the applicant-Dhananjaya, he is entitled to all the benefits,
and to effectuate the said rights, if it is necessary, it may be open to
the Corporation to create supemwnera1y post for the pe1iod in
question and give the benefits to the applicant for which he is entitled
F
as per the judgment of the Division Bench. The State Govemment
is directed to issue necess01y orders in this behalf.

It is further clarified that this clarification does not have the
effect of construing that the appellant- Dasegowda will not be G
entitled to the status and pensionary benefits as flowing from the
order passed by this Court in the appeals."

(Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the said order, the Government directed the Corporation H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to implement the order of this Court, by its order No. HUD 168 MNU 93,
Bangalore dated the 2nd September, 1993, reading as below :

"In the circumstances explained above the Bangalore City Cor-
poration is directed that Sri T.R. Dhananjaya be given all the
benefits flowing out of the order of the High Court dated 19.3.1984
B in Writ Petition Nos. 20147/1979 and 20148/1979 as affirmed by
the Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 7317-19-1984.

This Order is passed in obedience of the direction of the
Supreme Court of India contained in the Order dated 26.7.1993
passed in I.A. No. 3 of CA 797/1993.
c
It is further directed that the Bangalore City Corporation shall
give effect to the said Order of the Supreme Court of India."

On its receipt, the Corporation convened a meeting of the Taxation
D and Standing Committee for Finance and the said Committee in its Subject
No. 136/93 dated September 21, 1993 noticing all the disputes and direc-
tions issued by this Court resolved to create one post of Additional Chief
Engineer w.e.f. 1st August, 1990 in the scale of Rs. 4550-5600 and to grant
consequential benefits emanating therefrom in accordance with Section
88(2) (3) of the Act. The Corporation in its general meeting held on April
E 4, 1994 resolved thus :

"Therefore, be it resolved that a post of Engineer-in- Chief be
created in the pay of Rs. 5000-6300 and the same be filled by .,_
deputation from the Government. It be further resolved that the
post of Chief Engineer now in existence be filled by promotion of
F an official of the Corporation than by deputation. It be further
resolved that a supemwnera1y post of an Additional Chief Engineer
be created and the said post be filled by promotion of Sli T.R.
Dhananjaya in accordance with the Govemment Order with effect
from the supemwnerary date." ·
G
(Emphasis supplied)

When the matter went to the Government, the Government in its ...,,..
impugned proceedings dated July 10, 1995 stated thus :

H "18. Whereas the resolution of the Bangalore City Corporation as
T.R. DHANANJAYA v. J. VASUDEVAN 69

. ... referred to the above at SI. No. (ix) falls short of due compliance A
to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on
26.7.1993 in IA No. 3 of CA No. 797/93 separate action as con-
templated under law is being taken to deal with the said resolution.

19. And now, therefore, on account of the failure of Bangalore
City Corporation to accord the appropriate benefits as mentioned B
above to Sri T.R. Dhananjaya, the Government of Karnataka
deems it necessary to pass the following order :

The Bangalore City Corporation is hereby directed to accord
such benefits to Sri T.R. Dhananjaya as are indicated in para 16
of the preamble. The Bangalore City Corporation is further per-
c
mitted to create supernumerary posts as detailed below for the
purpose of granting such benefits.

SI. No. Cadre Period
D
1. Superintending From 17.11.1990
Engineer to 11.12.1990

This Order is issued in compliance with the orders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in I.A. No. 3 of CA No. 797/93 and the
undertaking given by the Government of Karnataka in various E
cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, Including the undertaking given to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 10.5.1995 in Contempt Petition
No. 234 of 1994."

The present contempt petition IS considered and disposed of in F
aforesaid background facts.

It is submitted by Sri Rama Jois, Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, that the Government has grossly violated the order passed by
this Court by denying to the petitioner the benefits arising out of the order G
, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which was affirmed by
this Court in the S.L.P. Nos. 7317-19/1984. It is further submitted that the
directions issued by this Court on July 26, 1993 clearly indicate that
whatever rights the petitioner was entitled to, i.e., promotion as an En-
gineer-in-Chief, were to be given with consequential benefits and that the
denial thereof is a deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court. H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Shri Santosh Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent •
contended that the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and the
order passed by this Court cannot be construed to mean that any other
persons who are legitimately entitled to the post of Chief Engineer are to
be denied the right as that would amount to contravention of the rules. He
argued that the Government has considered claims of all the personr. m
B
accordance with the rules and found that the petitioner was not eligible
even for the post of Chief Engineer, that he was eligible for the consequen-
tial benefits only for 24 days as Superintending Engineer and that one
Venkatesh was eligible to be promoted as Chief Engineer. Accordingly, he
was given the promotion as Chief Engineer. The petitioner challenged it
c and the High Court in the writ petition upheld the right of Venkatesh which
has become final. It was further urged, on behalf of the respondent, that
since the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the
post of Additional Chief Engineer, he was not given the .benefits and,
therefore, the action of the Government in passing the impugned order
does not amount to contempt of the Court.
D
The question, therefore, is whether the State Government has imple-
mented the direction of this Court and the earlier order in its letter and
spirit and whether the impugned order of the Government is contumacious.

E It would be clear from the record that the Government intended to
salvage the post of Dasegowda as he was deputed to the Corporation by
the Government as its nominee. In all the proceedings, the Government
failed and ultimately even its attempt to salvage Dasegowda by making
amendment to the rules and revalidation did not yield the desired result,
F since the High Court declared those revalidation rules to be ineffective as
far as Dasegowda was concerned. It is an admitted fact that the dispute
between the petitioner and Dasegowda was considered by the Division
Bench of the High Court and the right of the petitioner was upheld and
that of Dasegowda was denied. Others who joined in the litigation dropped
out in midstream. The petitioner alone persisted and became successful.
G When the petitioner apprehended that by virtue of this Court's order giving
the consequential benefits due to retirement of Dasegowda from Corpora-
tion and directing the Corporation to release the retiral benefits, it might .......
be construed that he was not entitled to the benefits arising out of the
orders passed by the High Court as confirmed by this Court in special leave
H petitions, this Court clarified that the rights given to the petitioner were
T.R. DHANANJAYA v. J. VASUDEVAN 71

not in any way jeopardised and that he was entitled to all the 'consequential A
benefits that would flow from the order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court. It was further clarified that if need be, an additional post
of Chief Engineer may be created to give benefits to the petitioner. The
Government was directed to issue necessary orders in this behalf.

The Corporation created an additional post of Engineer-in-Chief and B
directed that in the post thus created Dhananjaya be accommodated with
consequential benefits. When the matter had remained unattended by the
Government and this contempt petition was filed, Sri Hegde, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Government, had requested this Court
on May 10, 1995 for time for implementation of the Direction, when the c
following order was passed:

"Mr. Hegde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State
seeks for and is granted time till after vacation for implementation
of the order. List the matter after vacation."
D
When this order was passed, what remained for the respondent was
only implementation of the order passed by this Court in furtherance of
the action taken thereunder by the Corporation. It is now clear that instead

- of implementing the order, an attempt has been made to circumvent the
same and deny the benefits to the petitioner. As stated earlier, the
petitioner is a Corporation employee and the stand of the Government
appears to be to give benefit to their employees. So, an attempt has now
been made to get into the rule position and to find whether the petitioner
is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive En-
E

gineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. It is now stated that
according to the rules the petitioner would be eligible only as superintend- F
ing engineer and not as Chief Engineer. When direction was given in I.A.
3 of 1993, Government was a party to the proceedings and it was never
brought to our notice that the petitioner was not eligible. On the other
hand, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld the right of the
petitioner which became final.
G
Question is whether it is open to the respondent to take at this stage
this volte-face step. It is seen that all through Government was a party.
when the direction was given in I.A. No. 3 filed by the petitioner, it was
not brought to our notice that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion,
in contradiction with Dasegowda, or any other. When the claim inter se had H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had become final and. that
of Dasegowda was negatived, it is no longer open to the Government to go
behind the order and truncate the effect of the orders passed by this Court
by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimise legal alibi
to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. Thus it is clear that the
concerned officers have deliberately made concerted effort to disobey the
B orders passed by this Court to deny the benefits to the petitioner. So, we
are left with no option but to hold that the respondent has deliberately
and wilfully, with an intention to defeat the orders of this Court, passed
the impugned order. ~.

c Sri Hegde submits that the respondent-contemner was bona fide
under the impression that he had to consider the inter se seniority of all
the persons; he had no intention to deliberately disobey the orders of this
Court and that therefore, sentence of imprisonment may not be awarded
as punishment. He also argued that the contemner is at the fag end of his
career, and so, sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed.
D
Having considered these contentions and given our due considera-
tion, we think that there is no justification to accede to the contentions
raised by the learned counsel to take a lenient view. The reasons are
obvious. As stated earlier, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the
E Government had passed an order directing the Corporation to implement
the Order. When the Corporation had passed a resolution creating a
supernumerary post and to fill that post by accommodating Dhananjaya
with consequential benefits, the Government was only to give effect to the
order as passed by this Court on July 26, 1993. But instead of giving effect
F to the. resolution, the Government volte-face exercised the power to see
that the order, is not given effect to. If the respondent had really harboured
under any doubt, would have asked for clarification. Instead, the court was
prayed for extension of time on May 10, 1995 for compliance which
accordingly was given.

G Question is whether there is any extenuating circumstance to show
leniency in imposing the sentence. Considering the question in this back-
drop, we are of the opinion that there is no extenuating circumstance at
all, as after promoting Venkatesh, nothing at all could have reasonably
stood in the way of the petitioner to get appointed to the supernumerary
H post of Additional Chief Engineer created by the Corporation. It is only
T.R.DHANANJAYA v.J.VASUDEVAN 73

- the defiant attitude of the Government which derived him that post.

Accordingly, while finding the respondent guilty of committing con-
A

tempt, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
In addition, the Government is directed to give effect to the resolution
passed by the Corporation with all the consequential benefits as ordered
earlier. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly. B
The registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to
the Director General of Police, Government of Karnataka, on receipt
whereof he would implement the order and submit its compliance to the
Registry within one week from the date of its receipt and also within one
week after sentence was served by the respondent.
c
v.s.s. Petition allowed.