Order R.S. Dhavan, J.
1. When this court had heard this contempt petition and delivered its order of 26 May, 1990, the issue was on the non-compliance of the order of 18 May, 1989 or the disobedience of it. The opposite parties in their defence claimed, that the order has been complied with, while the petitioner made a counter claim that the order was being disobeyed.
2. On 26 May, 1990 the case did not go into the consideration of framing of charges against the four opposite parties on a notice of motion, as amidst proceedings an affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1, Air Marshal M.S. Bawa, subsequently fortified by his personal affidavit, that the terms of the order of 18 May, 1989 were misunderstood by him and his establishment, and the order shall now be complied with, and an opportunity was sought to do so.
3. In the face of these circumstances there was no occasion for this court to take the matter further for considering the framing of charges as it is difficult for the court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to ignore a statement of a person responsible in administration accepting that the order had not been under implementation and the terms given in the order were misunderstood and will be complied with henceforth.
4. In between, that is 26 May, 1990 and now, this matter could not be considered for more reasons that one (a) strike of lawyers, (b) change of counsel on behalf of opposite parties and (c) further indulgence sought on behalf of opposite parties to implement the order now.
5. This is one aspect of the matter. On the other hand the contempt proceedings cannot remain pending, as for instance the present case, to drag on. Thus, the nature of the case and its tenor was changing during pendency as one of non-compliance of the order to an acquiescence by the opposite parties that they shall comply with it.
6. Before the court notices the other aspect, the submissions as have been made on behalf of the opposite parties by the Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. V.K. Singh, are being noticed. He has submitted that it cannot be disputed that the order of 18 May, 1989, hither-to misunderstood on the implementation of it, caused misunderstandings. He has further contended that the order as it stood originally, that it is 1 May, 1989 would have been best for all. The only comment this court will make on this submissions that the modification of the order, initially an attempt to have it vacated, was sought by the Union of India in the writ petition.
7. Now there are certain aspects which the court can go into in these proceedings and there are certain aspects on which the court ought not to go into.
8. The court will take up the second aspect first. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the stay order as it stands, modified or otherwise, he has not been given promotion as his collesgues of the same batch and seniority have received. The petitioner, thus, submits the he receives less pay than his collesgues or even those junior to him. The court had indicated to the petitioner that it will be too far fetched for this court to judge the opposite parties for the denial of promotion as a normality of the situation when (a) there is an order of termination and (b) such an order of termination is the subject-matter of stay in the writ petition. Should the petitioner succeed in the writ petition then he will become entitled to every available promotional avenues which may have been denied to him. If the court were to divert its attention on the promotion which the petitioner feels is rightfully due to him it may be transpressing the issue beyond the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings.
9. For the petitioner's satisfaction, the court inquired from the opposite parties, on the matter of the petitioner's contention that he receives less pay than his colleagues or those junior to him. The court's inquiry was answered by Sqadron Leader J.G. Christian, respondent No. 3. He explained, that each rank, under the regulations, has an allocation of rank pay. Thus, the rank pay of a Flight Lieutenant is less than that of a Sqadron Leader. In these circumstances, this officer explained, that the possibility cannot be ruled out that if a person junior to the petitioner has seen a higher rank by promotion, as a Sqadran Leader, his pay will be higher than the petitioner's. This court, is, thus, not permitting the consideration of this as part of contempt proceedings, as this is an aspect which the petitioner can submit in the writ petition. In case, the writ petition succeeds he can have all the benefits of promotion denied to him.
10. Then there is another aspect which the court has noticed in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner in paragraph 69. The petitioner has made a reference of certain matters which are personal to, and the privacy of opposite party No. 1, Air Marshal M. S. Bawa. The reference is to the marriage of the son of opposite party No. 1 at Allahabad. This pleading of the petitioner is alien to the issue of these contempt proceedings and not even remotely connected with it. And, even otherwise the privacy of a son's wedding has no connection with this contempt case filed in April, 1990; the wedding was in November, later. Thus, it will not be in the interest of justice that this prargraph remains on record and on the principles as in Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil procedure this paragraph containing irrelevant and vexacious pleadings shall stand deleted from the record. The petitioner has also done so by his hand.
11. The petitioner has offered submissions on the following aspects in furtherence of his case that contempt of the order of 18 May, 1989 continues. These are: denial of free rations, Leave Travel Concession (L.T.C.) and Monthly Pay Slips.
12. The issue of rations : It is accepted by the opposite parties that on the modified stay order dated 18 May, 1989 initially the petitioner had not received the free rations in kind, but cash in lieu of it. There is still a debate before the court on what he has received after the implementation of the order, begun upon this court delivering its order of 26 May, 1990. The petitioner claims that what was received in cash is less. The petitioner refers to Clause 2 of the Defence Ministry Circular dated 29 September, 1984, which in effect clarifies that rations, unless the facility is not available, are to be given in kind. The opposite parties through the Senior Standing Counsel, placed the Defence Ministry Circular No. 66099/Q/ST-6/6879/ D/(QS) of 2 December, 1988, which permits an option to the administration of the three armed forces, regard being had to certain contingencies and in exceptional circumstances to give ration money in lieu of ration. Whatever be the cause, the situation on the supply of rations as a standardsed practise, to the petitioner has taken a long time to normalise. This includes the issue, on the allegation of the petitioner, that rations as part of a standard measure were not supplied and the defence of the opposite parties that the petitioner would not make himself available to receive it. The rations of the last four months and as of date have been made up and are now being supplied to the petitioner.
13. The issue of Leave Travel Concession (L.T.C.): The petitioner contends that he has not been granted this facility and he has been treated differently than other officers. This aspect of Leave Travel Concession is mentioned in paragraph 40 of the contempt petition and reiterated in paragraph 18 of the second supplementary rejoinder affidavit, filed today. The record rests between the petitioner and the establishment of the Air Force at Allahabad and between the parties they know what the petitioner is entitled to as part of his allowance and service benefits, an aspect which has been adequately mentioned in the order of 26 May, 1990. These bickerings on denial to the petitioner of the allowances and facilities to which he is entitled to, on the stay order as it stands, must end. The court mentions this as an employer must accept a stay order, modified at his instance. The opposite parties have not denied that the petitioner is not entitled to this allowance.
14. The issue of Monthly Pay Slips and statement of credits and debits against salary : The petitioner contends that he has been without information on his salary, allowances and deductions, which as a measure of routine are delivered to every officer of the Indian Air Force as Monthly Pay Slips. He contends that he is without knowledge of the interest on the contributions made to certain statutory schemes. He submits that he is without knowledge on the subscriptions he has made towards Family Assistance Scheme/ Children Education Deposit Scheme. The period which the petitioner alleges about which he is without information is between April, 1989 to August, 1990, both months inclusive. Thereafter, 1 of course, he had been given Monthly Pay Slips as available to every officer as part of subsequent implementation of the stay order. The contention of the petitioner on the period upon which he is without information is again a matter of misunderstanding of the stay order, and an aspect accepted by the opposite parties. This information is part of accountability which is a matter of record, and the petitioner is entitled to this information. This detailed information, month by month, for the periods not received by the petitioner, the Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. V.K. Singh, submits on behalf of the opposite parties, will be made available to the petitioner. Let this be done without delay.
15. It is not every contempt case which must see punishment on the disobedience of an order. The question of framing of charges in this case never arose as the opposite parties were totally aware of what the stay order was and accepted that it's terms had been misunderstood, when the affidavit date 26 May, 1990 was filed. Thereafter, the opposite parties set about to fall in line with the stay order dated 18 May, 1989. Rations hitherto not supplied were commenced, allowances stopped were bengun, the salary irregularised was regularised.
16. In these circumstances the only aspect which remains is that the order of 18 May, 1989 had not been complied with, but has been done of late. Beyond this whatever the court might observe would be repetition of the observations already made in the earlier order of 26 May 1990. These proceedings must see an end as the court does not desire to enlarge anything beyond what was said on 26 May, 1990. The disobedience of the court's order dated 18 May, 1989 has been purged, an apology has been tendered by opposite parties who took responsibility for the compliance of the order dated 18 May, 1989. The affidavits of apology are of opposite party No. 1, dated 15 May, 1990 and of the opposite party No. 3 dated 15 May, 1990 and 30 November, 1990.
17. In these circumstances, this court is not inclined to proceed further in this matter not draw any charges nor consider any punishment. The petitioner presses the court for personal costs against the opposite party No. 1 or others under notice of motion. This court has considered this aspect and regard being had to the circumstances that the opposite party No. 1 had placed his affidavit on record stating that he has misunderstood the order and offered an apology, the court is satisfied that this is not a case where there ought to be any personal costs on any party on notice of motion as this may amount to a fine and a sentence. The court has given its consideration on the matter of costs and the court is of the view that justice shall be done and satisfied if Union of India is directed to pay costs. The Senior Standing Counsel indicates the account as Air Force Public Fund Account, Bamrauli, which shall pay costs. Costs, thus, shall be one set. Let one set of costs be paid by the Union of India to the petitioner. The costs shall be Rs. 250/-(rupees two hundred and fifty only), payable from the account as indicated above.
18. This court cannot hold but notice the fact that the original stay order dated 1 May, 1989, modified at the instance of the Union of India, almost immediately after a fortnight on 18 May, 1989, was an exercise which has created more misunderstanding than was necessary. The Union of India, still had to pay the petitioner everything which he has to receive when the stay had not been modified. A day to day monitoring of the modified order dated 18 May, 1989, is not the function of the court, a continuous complaint on the breach of it will be a bad situation. This misunderstanding, accepted by petitioner and opposite parties, both, must cease. The court has been given to understand by the opposite parties that they shall consider the petitioner entitled to all services allowances, emoluments as if he were continuing in service, an aspect already noticed by the court in its order of 26 May, 1990.
19. The contempt petition, thus, is partly allowed to the extent that it was not a situation where the breach of orders was not there, but it was accepted by the opposite parties and, in fact, it was their defence that they had misunderstood the order. The opposite parties have now complied with the order.
20. With these observations let the record be consigned, but it will be available to the writ court, on the request of either party.
21. Partly allowed; costs as above.