Sumita Hazarika; Prakhar Gupta v. Subhasish Panda

1. The present contempt petition was filed alleging contempt/ wilful disobedience of the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court in LPA No. 675/2022.

2. Vide order dated 24.01.2024, passed in these proceedings, it was noted that the DDA has challenged the aforesaid judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 in the Supreme Court. It was also noticed that an interim order had been passed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of.

3. Subsequently, the SLP in the Supreme Court was dismissed. Consequently, the CM APPL. 56466/2024 came to be filed for revival of the present petition. Concededly, the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 need to be complied with.

4. The only controversy is as regards the computation of the amount/ benefit due and payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the DDA is not computing the amount in consonance with the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023, inasmuch as the benefit of Notional Promotion/ Increments/ ACP-MACP is not being extended to the petitioner. The operative directions of the Division Bench are as under:-

5. It is thus evident that although back wages were denied to the petitioner, it was made clear that the workman was to be treated as being in service till the age of superannuation. It is also made clear that his services till the date of superannuation shall be taken into account only for the purpose of grant of terminal dues, i.e. pension and other retiral dues.

6. Paragraph-56 goes on to clarify that the terminal dues shall be given to the petitioner at par with other regular employees after notional fixation of salary. The observations/ directions therein leaves no manner of doubt that for the purpose of computing the terminal dues of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be treated differently from the other regular employees of the DDA. Consequently, the benefit of any Notional Promotion/ Increments/ ACP-MACP is required to be given to the petitioner. The exclusion of the same by the DDA for the purpose of computing the terminal benefits results in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions.

7. The legal position is well settled that in these proceedings, this Court has the power to issue necessary consequential benefits and/or require the respondent to purge their conduct. In this regard reference may be made to the following judgments:- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1 “34.....A purpose of the court's powers to make findings of contempt is to that ensure the orders of the court are obeyed. This jurisdiction is required to be coextensive with the court's jurisdiction to make orders which need the protection which the jurisdiction to make findings of contempt provides.....” Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, (2024) 20 SCC 188

8. In the circumstances, respondent-DDA is directed to compute the terminal benefits of the petitioner in the aforesaid manner, at par with other regular employees, by giving the benefit of Notional Promotion/ Increments/ ACP-MACP.

9. Let the necessary computation be done expeditiously and the amount be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. In case the same is not done, the respondent shall become liable to face appropriate action for committing wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

11. Let a compliance affidavit be filed by the respondent before the next date of hearing.

12. List for reporting compliance on 15.09.2026.

SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 7, 2026