(Order of the Court was made by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) This is an application taken out under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, by innocuously couching the prayer as follows :
"....to issue notice to the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Honourable Court in writ appeal No.487 of 2008 dated 10.02.2009."
2. The brief facts which culminated in the filing of the contempt petition are as follows :
The petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P. No.36674 of 2003 seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Coast Guard Court constituted by the second respondent - Director General, Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi, in connection with the proceedings of the Coast Guard Court dated 29.10.2003 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and quash the same. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 29.10.2003 impugned therein. The respondents herein carried the matter on appeal in writ appeal No.487 of 2008. The Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. The said order was passed on 10.02.2009. While dismissing the writ appeal, the appellants therein were directed to reinstate the contempt petitioner with all consequential benefits, as if there was never any order of dismissal against him, within 8 weeks from the date of the order. On that premise, after passing of the order dated 10.02.2009, the petitioner caused a lawyer's notice requiring the respondents herein to comply with the order of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. Again on 13.02.2009, the petitioner sent a representation, which was acknowledged by the fourth respondent, followed by another representation on 06.04.2009, but the respondents herein have not complied with the order dated 10.02.2009 despite the expiry of the time limit stipulated therein. The respondents have showed scant respect to the order passed by this Court, which act of the respondents is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. With the above averments, this contempt petition has been filed to issue notice to the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 10.02.2009. After issuance of contempt notice, the respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which, before traversing into the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, the respondent has tendered the unconditional apology, which reads as follows :
"I submit that I have not done and will not do anything that even indirectly could amount to disobedience of any order of this Honourable Court. In the event of this Honourable Court after taking into consideration of my explanation and the facts on record, forms an opinion to be of contempt, I sincerely tender my unconditional apology before this Honourable Court".
3. It is averred in the counter affidavit that in obedience to the order passed by this Court, on 22.04.2009, the petitioner was reinstated. The Board has recommended that the petitioner may be considered afresh for promotion to the rank of Commandant (Junior Grade) by the next Promotion Board to be held in 2010 based on his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009 which will cover the period subsequent to his reinstatement in service, that the extract from the proceedings of the said promotion Board held on 20.07.2009 has been communicated to the petitioner through Coast Guard Regional Headquarters (East), Chennai under CGHQ letter OF/1185 dated 21.07.2009. When the petitioner has been reinstated in service, an interim payment of Rs.1.00 lakhs has been paid to meet the domestic requirements, payment of cash in lieu of rations for the period from 31.10.2003 till 21.04.2009 has also been made. He has been promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant with effect from 27.12.1996 as per the recommendations kept in sealed cover by the DPC held in 1996. Further steps were taken for payment of difference of arrears of pay and allowances in his capacity as Deputy Commandant of Coast Guard and would be paid soon after receipt of intimation from the Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy), Mumbai. The respondents took all follow up action sincerely, and the order dated 10.02.2009 was complied with in accordance with law. There was no intention on the part of the respondents, either willful or wanton, even indirectly to disobey the Court order under any circumstance.
4. In addition to that, it was also brought to the notice of the Court, that on 29.07.2009, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P. No.16771 of 2009, seeking for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent on 21.07.2009 and its consequential order No.AD/100 dated 27.07.2009 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner as Deputy Commandant w.e.f. December, 1995 and as Commandant (Selection Grade) with effect from August 2002 along with the XII Batch and pay all consequential and other benefits arising therefrom.
5. In the above said factual matrix, when the matter was taken up for orders, the petitioner who entered appearance through a counsel, submitted today morning that he is appearing as party in person and argued the case.
6. The case of the petitioner is that he was not given proper promotion and the amount due to him has also not been paid within the period stipulated in the order made in writ appeal. From the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 6 and 7, it could be seen that the Board has recommended the petitioner's promotion to the rank of Commandant (Junior Grade) by the next Promotion Board to be held in 2010 based on his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009 which will cover the period subsequent to his reinstatement in service, which was communicated to the petitioner through Coast Guard Regional Headquarters (East), Chennai under CGHQ letter OF/1185 dated 21.07.2009. It is also seen that an interim payment of Rs.1.00 lakhs has been paid to meet the domestic requirements, payment of cash in lieu of rations for the period from 31.10.2003 till 21.04.2009 has also been made. He has been promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant with effect from 27.12.1996 as per the recommendations kept in sealed cover by the DPC held in 1996. It is also stated that further payment of difference of arrears of pay and allowances would also be paid to him soon in his capacity as Deputy Commandant of Coast Guard soon after receipt of intimation from the Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy), Mumbai.
7. Hence, we are of the view that the respondents are taking proper steps and complied with the order of this Court. The action taken by the respondents, as exhibited from the counter affidavit, shows that they are following the procedure, though with some delay, which cannot be regarded as a deliberate and intentional floating of the order passed by this Court.
8. The promotion to the higher post, as sought for in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is a separate cause of action by itself. The petitioner also rightly thought it fit to file the writ petition as the relief sought for is a separate cause of action de hors the relief sought for in the writ petition filed seeking to quash the order of dismissal from service. When that being the factual position, he cannot maintain this contempt proceedings, as the factual averment made in the counter affidavit belied the contention of the petitioner that the respondents willfully, contumaciously and deliberately flouted the order of this Court with scant respect.
9. Having appraised of the facts as stated above, we just remind ourselves of the contempt jurisdiction : While dealing with the application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. The Court cannot expand or go beyond the order of the Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. (vide Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006 AIR SCW 342 and K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, 2001 (10) SCC 496.)
10. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order.
11. In a similarly placed circumstance, in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly,(2002) 5 SCC 352, on an order passed by the High Court directing that the petitioners therein should be given the benefit of promotion and consequential financial benefits envisaged under the Government Order, but not containing specific direction for preparation of combined seniority list including the petitioners, the petitioners, not satisfied with implementation of the said order of the High Court, filed contempt petition against the respondents. High Court passed orders directing the respondents/contemnors to introduce a common gradation list and thereby granted substantive relief. When questioned before the Supreme Court, it held that the same was without jurisdiction with an observation that such a dispute can only be determined on consideration of all relevant aspects of the matter and cannot be and should not be ordered in the summary proceeding for taking action for contempt of court. The Court further explained the contempt jurisdiction as follows :
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained."
12. The contempt petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner was not given proper promotion. The petitioner also filed a writ petition for the same relief. The petitioner, under the threat of proceeding with the contempt petition, wants to get all substantive relief from the respondents, which are having different considerations. Promotion to the higher post is based on different factors like eligibility, efficiency, Annual Confidential Report, etc.,
13. The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Power to punish for contempt of Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the courts dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court. (vide R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik , (2000) 4 SCC 400).
14. The petitioner, under the threat of this contempt proceedings, seeks for a direction for promoting him and placing his seniority as sought for by him, which cannot be granted or form a ground for punishing the respondents for contempt.
15. Having regard to the law laid down by the apex Court, cited supra and having regard to the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed in this case, we are of the view that the action of the respondents is not willful or deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court, so as to haul them up under the Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt notice issued is discharged. The contempt petition is closed.
mf