@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.N. Basha, J.@mdashThe petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order dated 14.11.2008 passed in W.P. No. 25724 of 2006.
2. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that they have been working as Forest Guards in various places in and around Coimbatore District. This Court by its order dated 14.11.2008 directed the respondents herein to consider the petitioners'' case with regard to their promotion, if not already considered as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest & Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988. This Court also directed the respondents to consider their representation dated 30.4.97 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. The petitioners submitted that there is no appeal filed against the above said order of this Court.
3. As per G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest and Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988, the petitioners should have been promoted as Fieldman Grade-II on completion of 10 years of service as "Kannakkapillai" in Cinchona Department (prior to their absorption from Cinchona to Forest Dept.). The order copy of this Court in the above said writ petition was received by the respondents in the 1st week of December 2008 and inspite of the same, the directions given by this Court have not been complied. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation to the respondents on 9.2.2009 with a copy of the order dated 14.11.2008. The petitioners also sent legal notice dated 15.4.2009 but in spite of the said representation and legal notice, the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court dated 14.11.2008. The said inaction and disobedience on the part of the respondents would amount to clear contempt of orders of this Court by the respondents, punishable under the Contempt of Court Act. Therefore, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer.
4. The first respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioners have been engaged on daily wages basis as Kannakkapillai in Cinchona Department and they have filed an application in O.A. No. 4164/1997 seeking a direction to promote them as Fieldman, Grade-II with all benefits from the date on which they complete 10 years of service as Kannakkapillai as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest and Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988. On transfer, the said O.A was renumbered as W.P. No. 25724/2006 and this Court passed an order dated 14.11.2008 observing that the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has not heard from the petitioners about their position as on date, whether they have been promoted later on or not and further ordered that the case of the petitioners could be considered for promotion, if not already considered as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest and Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988 on the basis of their representation dated 30.4.1997 and the said exercise is to be carried out within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. It is specifically stated by the respondents that the matter has been already examined in compliance of the order of this Court as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest and Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988. It is stated that, except the 4th petitioner who has completed 10 years of service as Kannakkapillai on daily wages on 25.5.1991, the others completed the said period in the year 1990 and the respondent itself have specifically mentioned in the counter. The case of the petitioners have already considered by the second respondent as per the said G.O. Ms. No. 655 and found that they have not completed 10 years of service as on 12/87 or 12/88 and as such they were not selected as Fieldman, Grade-II. It is stated that the order of this Court dated 14.11.2008 was received in the office of the first respondent on 8.12.2008 and the same was communicated to the second respondent as per his letter dated 25.2.2009. The second respondent as per his letter dated 25.5.2009 has informed the first respondent that the case of the petitioners have already been considered and promoted as Forest Watcher Grade-II with effect from 9.1.2001 as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 and no further action required to be pursued in this matter.
6. It is further stated that Cinchona Department was wound up and the Forest Department would be the Parent Department for the staffs with effect from 1.4.1990. The petitioners were not regular employees as on 1.4.1990. It is further stated that the petitioners have jointed duty in the regular post of Forest Watcher Grade-II on 9.1.2001 and they have not challenged the Government orders in G.O. Ms. No. 5, Environment and Forests Department dated 9.1.2001. The petitioners have given representation dated 9.2.2009 and the first respondent sent the representation to the second respondent and the second respondent has sent detailed reply to the petitioners as per his letter dated 28.10.2009. It is further stated that the respondent have no intention to disobey the orders of this Court and the directions of this Court was already complied.
7. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the above said counter filed by the respondents particularly stating that the interpretation of the respondents in respect of G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988 as to the completion of 10 years of service by 12/87 and 12/88 as cut off dates in respect of the petitioners is a clear misconception of the G.O and there is no cut off date or any time limit prescribed in the said G.O. It is stated that the cut off dates are only phases in which the said scheme of promotion has to be given effect to, that too, before abolition of Cinchona Department. It is stated that the contention of the respondents that G.O. Ms. No. 5 dated 9.1.2001 was issued as a policy decision and is liable to be rejected and the correct policy decision of the Government has already been declared in G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988.
8. Mr. V. Chokalingham, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008 in W.P. No. 25724/2006. It is contended that the respondents wrongly interpreted the G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988 as to the completion of 10 years of service by 12/87 and 12/88 as cut off dates in respect of the petitioners. It is submitted that such interpretation is a clear misconception of the G.O. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Director of Cinchona proposed to give effect of the proposal in a phased manner over a period of three years i.e., 1988 - 1991 and as such there could not be any cut off date as alleged by the respondents. It is contended that G.O itself speaks about all the 33 persons and the respondents cannot deny the promotional benefits to remaining 9 Kannakkapillais which was already given to 24 persons which is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in respect of 9 Kannakkapillais, G.O. Ms. No. 33, Environment and Forest Department dated 13.2.2002 was passed.
9. It is further contended that the compliance by the respondents is not in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 44 STC 42.
10. Per contra, Mr. Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate (Forest) contended that the order of this Court dated 14.11.2008 was already complied with by the respondents. It is submitted that the second respondent passed a detailed order on the representation of the petitioners dated 9.2.2009 on 28.10.2009. It is contended that as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 two benefits have been given under two phases as under:
(I) To re-designate the post of Kannakkapillais as Fieldman, Grade-II and to promote the existing 16 posts of Kannakkapillai who have put in 10 years of service by 12/87 as Fieldman, Grade-II by creating 16 posts in the scale of Rs. 450-10-570-15-720 with effect from May 1988 under the first phase.
(II) To promote the existing 9 Kannakkapillais who have completed 10 years of service by 12/88 as Fieldman, Grade II by creating 9 posts in the scale of Rs. 450-10-570-15-720 with effect from April 1989 under the second phase.
11. The learned Government Advocate (Forest) contended that the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance only on the proposal of the Director proposing to give effect to such proposal in a phased manner over a period of three years. In the said G.O, considering such proposal and after examining the same the Government passed an order to the effect of stipulating the cut off dates as 12/87 and 12/88 for completing 10 hears of service for promotion to the post of Fieldman Grade-II. It is pointed out that the case of the petitioners have already been considered by the second respondent as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988 and found that they have not completed 10 years of service as on 12/87 or 12/88 and as such they have not selected for promotion for Fieldman Grade-II. It is further contended that the order of this Court dated 14.11.2008 was received by the first respondent on 8.12.2008 and the same was communicated to the second respondent on 25.2.2009 and the second respondent in turn sent his letter dated 25.5.2009 to the first respondent informing that the case of the petitioners have already been considered and promoted as Forest Watcher, Grade-II among others with effect from 9.1.2001 as per G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.188 and G.O. Ms. No. 5, Environment and Forests Department dated 9.1.2001. The learned Government Advocate (Forest) further submitted that on the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2009, the second respondent sent a detailed reply to the petitioners as per his letter dated 28.10.2009. Therefore, the respondents have not disobeyed the orders of this Court and on the other hand as a matter of fact the order of this Court was complied.
12. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008 in W.P. No. 25724/2006 and the G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest & Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988 and the detailed letter sent by the 2nd respondent dated 28.10.2009.
13. At the outset, it is to be stated that admittedly a detailed reply dated 28.10.2009 was given by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners mainly stating about the compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008. The main grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the compliance of the order of this Court is not in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988 and it is contended by the petitioners that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988 as to the completion of 10 years of service by 12/87 and 12/88 as cut off dates in respect of the petitioners. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioners disputed the compliance of the order of this Court only on the basis of the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 655 dated 9.6.1988.
14. It is pertinent to note that the contention of the petitioners is to the effect that G.O. Ms. No. 655 does not stipulate any cut off date and it contemplates the implementation of the proposal of the Director in a phased manner for a period of 3 years. But on the other hand, it is highlighted by the learned Government Advocate (Forest) by taking this Court through the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 655 to the effect that it is only the proposal of the Director to promote the petitioners in a phased manner for over a period of 3 years and the said proposal of the Director was considered and the Government passed an order after examining the proposal of the Director by stipulating cut off dates as 12/87 and 12/88 in respect of completion of 10 years of service by the Kannakkapillais. However, this Court cannot go into the interpretation of the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 655 except incorporating the rival claims made by both sides, as stated above, as the same would cause prejudice to the claim of the petitioners in the event of the petitioners challenging the order of the respondents dated 28.10.2009. It is suffice for this Court to find out whether the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008.
15. It is pertinent to note that the second respondent on the basis of the representation of the petitioners dated 9.2.2009, passed a detailed order dated 28.10.2009 indicating to the petitioner about the compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008 in W.P. No. 25724/2006 in terms of G.O. Ms. 655 dated 9.6.1988. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
16. It is relevant to refer to the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in
....''wilful'' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law...it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose.
17. The Hon''ble Apex Court in
18. The Hon''ble Apex Court in
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country- undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law courts but that by itself operates as a string of action and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the statute.
Powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists, no doubt, as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide.
Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971- the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation- the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise.
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
19. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court that a mere disobedience of an order will not be contumacious and it is essential that it must be wilfull. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it is already pointed out that, even as per the version of the petitioners it is only alleged that the respondents have wrongfully interpreted the terms of G.O. Ms. No. 655 (Forest & Fisheries) dated 9.6.1988, in respect of the compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2008 in W.P. No. 25724/2006. On the other hand, the detailed reply given by the second respondent dated 28.10.2009 reveals about the compliance of the order passed by this Court and as such there is absolutely no question of any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.
20. Accordingly, the contempt petition is hereby stands dismissed.
