Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Application in Daily Wage Regularization Case: N.K. Janu vs. Lakshmi Chandra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 April 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3740 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 15358 of 2018)

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a contempt of court application be used to challenge the rejection of a claim for regularization, after the court’s initial order to consider the claim has been followed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of contempt jurisdiction in cases involving daily wage employees and their regularization. This case revolves around a daily wage employee’s quest for regularization and the subsequent legal battles fought in the High Court and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the merits of an order passed in compliance with the court’s direction.

Case Background

The respondent, Lakshmi Chandra, initially filed a writ petition in 1992, seeking regularization as a daily wage employee. This petition was disposed of based on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of *State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti Lal*. The Supreme Court held that daily wagers were entitled to minimum pay scales but not other allowances or increments. The Court also noted that the *Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001* had been framed, thus negating the need for any further schemes.

Subsequently, in 2004, the respondent filed another writ petition, which was disposed of in 2008 with directions to consider his case for regularization under the 2001 Rules. The High Court relied on the case of *Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubbhag-3*, stating that employees working on the cut-off date and continuing as daily wagers were entitled to regularization, even with intermittent work.

However, in 2008, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Agra, rejected the respondent’s claim for regularization, stating that he was not continuously working and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in *Secretary of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi* that appointments made without proper selection procedures are not eligible for regularization.

Instead of challenging this rejection through a writ petition, the respondent filed a contempt application in 2009. The High Court issued notices to the appellants and granted them an opportunity to comply with the 2008 order. The appellants then sanctioned the minimum pay scale to the respondent. The High Court continued to pass orders, seeking personal presence of the officers of the State.

The High Court directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P., to prepare accurate eligibility and seniority lists. This order was challenged in a special appeal which was dismissed. The Supreme Court, in *Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division and Another vs. Lakshmi Chandra*, directed the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P. and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to file affidavits before the High Court on the implementation of the orders.

The High Court, in 2016, stated that the department could not deny minimum pay scales to daily wagers. This order was challenged before a Division Bench, which noted a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of the High Court, *State of U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others* and *Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. Shri Hari Shankar*. The court noted that since the matter arose from an order of the Supreme Court, it would not intervene, and the State could seek clarification from the Supreme Court.

The State then filed applications which were later withdrawn. The State then filed a Special Leave Petition which was also withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition in the High Court. The review petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for recall of this dismissal order was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent’s initial writ petition was disposed of in line with the judgment in *State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti Lal*. After the Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, the respondent filed another writ petition which was disposed of with directions to consider his case for regularization. The Divisional Director rejected the claim, citing lack of continuous service and the *Uma Devi* judgment.

Instead of filing a fresh writ petition, the respondent filed a contempt application. The High Court issued notices and directed compliance. The High Court also passed orders to ensure the presence of the officers of the State. The High Court’s order was challenged in a special appeal which was dismissed. The Supreme Court directed the Principal Secretary to file an affidavit before the High Court.

The High Court then stated that the department could not deny minimum pay scales to daily wagers. This order was challenged before a Division Bench, which noted a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of the High Court, *State of U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others* and *Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. Shri Hari Shankar*. The court noted that since the matter arose from an order of the Supreme Court, it would not intervene, and the State could seek clarification from the Supreme Court. The State then filed applications which were later withdrawn. The State then filed a Special Leave Petition which was also withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition in the High Court. The review petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for recall of this dismissal order was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the *Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001*. These rules were framed to regularize daily wage appointments on Group ‘D’ posts in Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti Lal* is also a key part of the legal framework. This judgment established that daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scales as received by their counterparts in the government, but not to other allowances or increments.

The judgment also refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Secretary of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi* which held that appointments made without proper selection procedures are not eligible for regularization.

The High Court’s reliance on its judgment in *Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubhag-3* is also relevant. This judgment held that employees working on the cut-off date and continuing as daily wagers are entitled to regularization, even with intermittent work.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the respondent had been paid the minimum pay scale, and therefore, the dispute regarding pay does not survive.
• They contended that the respondent did not work continuously from 1994 to 2000, and worked intermittently from 2001 to 2003. They further argued that there was no record of the respondent working from December 2003. Therefore, the respondent’s claim for regularization was rightly rejected.
• The appellants argued that once the department had passed an order regarding regularization, the respondent should have challenged it through a writ petition and not through a contempt application.
• They argued that the High Court exceeded its contempt jurisdiction by compelling the presence of officers and going beyond the orders passed by the Single Bench.
• The appellants relied on the Division Bench judgment in *State of U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others*, which examined the issue of minimum pay scale and artificial break in service for regularization.
• The appellants also relied on the judgment in *Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others* where the Allahabad High Court held that a break of two years cannot be treated as an artificial break.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the initial order of the High Court to consider his case for regularization had not been properly complied with.
• The respondent contended that he was entitled to regularization as he had been working as a daily wager since 1983, though intermittently.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in continuing the contempt proceedings despite the appellants having considered the respondent’s case for regularization and paid the minimum pay scale.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti Lal* [**CITATION**] – The Court reiterated the principle that daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scales.
• *Secretary of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi* [**CITATION**] – The Court noted that appointments made without proper selection procedures are not eligible for regularization.
• *Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary, Forest Anubhag-3* [**CITATION**] – The Court noted the High Court’s view that employees working on the cut-off date and continuing as daily wagers are entitled to regularization, even with intermittent work.
• *State of U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others* [**CITATION**] – The Court noted that the High Court had examined the issue of minimum pay scale and artificial break in service for regularization.
• *Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. Shri Hari Shankar* [**CITATION**] – The Court noted the conflict between this judgment and *State of U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others*.
• *Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others* [**CITATION**] – The Court noted the High Court’s view that a break of two years cannot be treated as an artificial break.
• *Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division and Another vs. Lakshmi Chandra* [**CITATION**] – The Court referred to its previous order directing the Principal Secretary to file an affidavit before the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Compliance with the Initial Order: The Court emphasized that the appellants had complied with the initial order of the High Court by considering the respondent’s case for regularization and paying the minimum pay scale.
• Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction: The Court stressed that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge the merits of an order passed in compliance with the court’s direction. The Court clarified that contempt proceedings are meant to ensure compliance with court orders, not to re-litigate the issues.
• Proper Legal Recourse: The Court noted that the respondent’s appropriate recourse was to file a writ petition to challenge the rejection of his regularization claim, rather than a contempt application.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court expressed disapproval of the High Court’s practice of summoning officers to court, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the proper interpretation of contempt jurisdiction. The factual aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s intermittent employment and the rejection of his regularization claim, were secondary to the legal issues.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law. The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: the High Court’s order was to consider the case for regularization and pay the minimum pay scale, and this order was complied with by the department. The rejection of regularization was a separate issue that could not be addressed through contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear and unambiguous: the contempt application was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by compelling the presence of officers and going beyond the initial order.

The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving contempt proceedings in service matters. It clarifies that contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for other legal remedies, such as writ petitions.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reiterated the established principles of contempt jurisdiction and the need for judicial restraint.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment.

“The Contempt Court is to ensure that the order of the Court is complied with.”

“Since the appellants have considered the claim of regularization and/or payment of minimum of pay scale, the only remedy of the respondent was by way of the Writ Petition.”

“The practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve the purpose of administration of justice in view of the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary.”

Key Takeaways

• Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge the merits of an order passed in compliance with the court’s direction.
• If an order of the court has been complied with by considering the case for regularization and payment of minimum pay scale, a contempt application is not maintainable.
• The appropriate legal recourse to challenge the rejection of a regularization claim is through a writ petition, not a contempt application.
• Courts should exercise judicial restraint and avoid summoning officers to court unnecessarily.

The judgment clarifies the scope of contempt jurisdiction in service matters and emphasizes the need for proper legal recourse. This decision will likely reduce the number of contempt applications filed in cases where the initial order of the court has been complied with.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the Contempt Application.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the merits of an order passed in compliance with the court’s direction. The Court reiterated the established principles of contempt jurisdiction and the need for judicial restraint. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the contempt application, holding that the High Court was not justified in continuing the contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellants had complied with the initial order by considering the case for regularization and paying the minimum pay scale. The Court clarified that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge the merits of an order passed in compliance with the court’s direction and that the proper remedy for the respondent was to file a writ petition.