Purshotam Lal Bindra v. Shri Pardeep R. Sethi, Chief Commissionerot Income Tax And Another

COCP No.1222 of2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH. AT CHANDIGARH.COCP No.1222 of2015 (O&M)Date of Decision: 08.01.2018 Purshotam Lal Bindra _. Petitioner Versus Shri Pardeep R. Sethi, Chief Commissionerot Income Tax and another....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS, JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocatefor the respondents, ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 12 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating the contempt proceedings fornot complying with the directions issued by this Court inCWP No.3329-CAT of2004, whereby, the petitioner was held entitled to the benefits. Petitioner filedCWP No.3329-CAT of 2004, which wasdisposed of with a direction to the respondent, on the basis of statementmade by counsel for Union of India, to release the necessary consequentialbenefits, if any, aS a consequence of voluntary retirement of the petitionervide order dated 21.03.2014, within a period of three months. It was a casewhere the petitioner was compulsorily retired and the said order waschallenged by him. Subsequently, during pendency of the petition, the COCP No.1222 of2015 request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted but some ofthe consequential benefits were not released to him. Thereafter, thepetitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present contemptpetition. In response to notice of motion, the reply was filed, wherein, ithas been mentioned that the petitioner has been released the benefits ofrevised leave encashment, revised salary with effect from 01.01.1999 to30.04.1999, HRA, encashment of gratuity and commutation of pension aswell. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitionerfor release of consequential benefits for which he was entitled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while disposingof the writ petition, the petitioner was held entitled for all benefits byconsidering the compulsory retirement as voluntary. It includes furtherpromotion after opening of “Sealed Cover’, fixation of pay and allowances,enhancement of pension etc. with interest. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order ofcompulsory retirement was passed and the same was challenged in CWPNo.3329-CAT of2004. Thereafter, the order of compulsory retirement wastreated as voluntary retirement after expiry of period of 90 days trom thedate of application i.e 04.01.1999. All benefits were released to thepetitioner for which he was found to be entitled after considering hisretirement as voluntary in place of compulsory retirement. Learned counselalso submits that it is not a case of non-compliance of order dated21.03.2014 and hence, no contempt is made out. All benefits have beenreleased to the petitioner by considering his prayer in the main petition as COCP No.1222 of2015 well as order passed therein. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and havealso perused the documents available on the file including the orders passedin the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner filedCWP No.3329-CAT of 2004before this Court for quashing of order dated 31.01.2001, whereby, thepunishment of compulsory retirement was awarded, order dated 12.12.2002passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, the OriginalApplication No.1323-HP-2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thecase came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and thefollowing order was passed on 20.02.2014 :- COCP No.1222 of2015 well as order passed therein. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and havealso perused the documents available on the file including the orders passedin the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner filedCWP No.3329-CAT of 2004before this Court for quashing of order dated 31.01.2001, whereby, thepunishment of compulsory retirement was awarded, order dated 12.12.2002passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, the OriginalApplication No.1323-HP-2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thecase came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and thefollowing order was passed on 20.02.2014 :- 4It does appear to us that the petitioner is avictim of circumstances. The petitioner wanted leave toattend to his daughter who was expecting and wasbased in Australia. It appears that the authorities werenot inclined to grant leave. The petitioner took one dayleave and thereafter did not rejoin but submitted anapplication for voluntary retirement. Instead ofacceding to that, two fresh charges were put to thepetitioner of giving wrong residential address and notreporting back in time. The cumulative effect of the earlier proceedingswhere he was censured on being found negligent forpermitting penal proceedings of against an assessee toget time barred coupled with these two charges hasresulted in imposition of punishment of compulsoryretirement. Really speaking compulsory retirement saves thebenefits of retirement of the petitioner. All that thepetitioner is desiring now, as submitted by learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that rather than being COCP No.1222 of2015 inflicted with the consequences of the compulsoryretirement, his application for voluntary retirement betreated as accepted on the expiry of the 90 days fromthe date ofthe application (1.e 04.01.1999). We are of the view that the aforesaid is a fairsuggestion and thus call upon the respondents to take aconsidered view in the matter. In pursuance of order dated 20.02.2014, order dated 14.03.2014 converting the compulsory retirement of the petitioner into voluntary waspassed. Said petition came up for hearing on 21.03.2014 and the followingorder was passed :- “ Mr. Gurpreet has produced a photocopy of the order dated 14.03.2014 whereby request of thepetitioner for voluntary retirement on the expiry of 90days from the date of application 1.e 04.01.1999 hasbeen accepted. In view of the said fact, no further orders arecalledfor in the present writ petition. Disposed of. However, as a consequence of voluntaryretirement ofthe petitioner, the respondent shall releasethe necessary consequential benefits, if any, within aperiod ofthree months. ” It is apparent from order dated 21.03.2014 that the request ofthe petitioner for voluntary retirement on expiry of 90 days from the date ofapplication i.e 04.01.1999 was accepted and accordingly, the writ petitionwas disposed of with a direction that as a consequence of voluntaryretirement of the petitioner, the consequential benefits be released to him.After having the legal opinion, the claim of the petitioner was consideredand he was released revised leave encashment, salary, benefits of HRA,encashment of gratuity and commutation of pension. The petitioner is COCP No.1222 of2015 claiming that he is also entitled for benefits of promotion and otherconsequential benefits and non-compliance of said order amounts to wilfuldisobedience of the orders passed by the Writ Court. It is apparent from order dated 21.03.2014 that the request ofthe petitioner for voluntary retirement on expiry of 90 days from the date ofapplication i.e 04.01.1999 was accepted and accordingly, the writ petitionwas disposed of with a direction that as a consequence of voluntaryretirement of the petitioner, the consequential benefits be released to him.After having the legal opinion, the claim of the petitioner was consideredand he was released revised leave encashment, salary, benefits of HRA,encashment of gratuity and commutation of pension. The petitioner is COCP No.1222 of2015 claiming that he is also entitled for benefits of promotion and otherconsequential benefits and non-compliance of said order amounts to wilfuldisobedience of the orders passed by the Writ Court. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pray for any relief regardingthe opening of the “Sealed Cover” and consideration to the higher post. Theclaim of the petitioner was for setting aside the order of compulsoryretirement and his request for conversion from compulsory retirement tovoluntary retirement was accepted. On acceptance of said request, the writpetition was disposed of. The petitioner did not raise any objection even atthe time of disposal of the writ petition. He is claiming consequentialbenefits including promotion by stating that it was also a part ofconsequential benefits. It is a matter of interpretation. It cannot be said to bethe contempt of the orders passed by the Writ Court and cannot be termedas an intentional or wilful violation of the orders of the Court. This aspectcannot be adjudicated upon by the Contempt Court. It is to be seen as towhether the order passed by this Court has been implemented or not and asto whether the order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with ornot. There was no specific mention in the order passed in the writ petition asto which were the consequential benefits which were to be released. Theproceedings for contempt are to be initiated with utmost reservation andalter applying due care and caution. The power of the court in imposingpunishment for contempt of the court is not an uncontrolled or unlimited asit is to be exercised only when a clear cut case is made out for non-compliance of order passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was having remedy to move an application forclarification of the order before the Writ Court, in case, there was any COCP No.1222 of2015 ambiguity but no such clarification has been sought by him. However, incase, the petitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he ishaving remedy but the same has not been availed and contempt petition hasbeen filed. In view of the above, no ground is made out to initiatecontempt proceedings against the respondents as no case is made out toattract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, the petition, beingdevoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. O8.O1.2018 ©curpreet | (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/NoYes/No