This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on the allegations that the order dated 24.09.2003 passed by the writ court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of family pension in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonamal Vs. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1196 as well as the notification of the respondents dated 19.08.1985 and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners has been willfully flouted in as much as despite due service of the order, the claim of the petitioners remains undecided.
From the own pleadings set up by the applicants, the copy of the judgment of this Court dated 24.09.2003 was acknowledged by the opposite party vide letter dated 05.12.2003 (Annexure '2' to the affidavit).
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes a limitation of one year from the date the contempt is alleged to have been committed for initiating proceedings. Admittedly, in the present case, the application for initiating proceedings of contempt has been filed after about nine years.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been making representation which went on unheeded and on mistaken advise they filed writ petition before the Patna High Court in the year 2008 which was ultimately dismissed on 22.11.2011 with liberty to avail such other remedy as may be available and thereafter the present contempt application is being filed.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others, AIR 2001 SC 2763 in paragraph 44 has observed as under :
"44. Action for contempt is divisble into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice. In other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
Admittedly, in the present case, proceedings have been initiated after expiry of period of almost nine years. In case of non payment of family pension, it would have been a continuing cause of action in as much as the same becomes due every month but according to the own case set up by the applicants in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the family pension is being paid vide order dated 14.06.2007. Thus, the dispute remains only with respect to gratuity and Provident Fund which is payable one time. The cause of action arose to the applicants on expiry of period of three months after the service of the order of this Court when the opposite party failed to take any decision.
This contempt application having been filed much beyond the period of limitation of one year is barred by time and accordingly consigned to record.
Order Date :- 13.3.2012 Dcs