S P SINGH & ORS Petitioners Through Prof. Kamal Jit Chhibber, Advocate v. PROMOD KUMAR GUPTA &ANR

1. Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience ofthe order dated 22°'' April, 2014 on the ground that revised pension ofthe petitioners on the revised pay scale has not been calculated.

2. Petitioners have also claimed arrears of Contributory Provident Fund for short "CPF"] as well as interest on both pension and CPF. The operative 2017:DHC:8486 portion ofthe order dated 22"^^ April, 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

2. Learned counselfor thepetitioner says that he does not wish to press the claimfor interestas stated in theprayer clause.

3. Counsel for respondent No.l, which is the contesting respondent, says that he is agreeable to the writ petition being allowedin terms ofprayer clause (i) sans theclaimfor interest.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms ofprayer clause, excluding the reliefclaimedqua interest. "

3. In the reply-affidavits, it has been stated that as the petitioners have opted for a pension scheme offered by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the pension of the petitioners has to be revised arid paid by the LIC directly.

4. It has also been averredin the reply-affidavits that the petitioners are not entitled to CPF as they had never contributed any amount towards the provident fund and they do not have any provident fund account.

5. in rejoinder-affidavit though the aforesaid facts are notdisputed, yetit is contended that one Mr. Subhash Chander Gupta has been paid the revised pension by the respondent. A perusal of the paper book reveals that unlike the petitioners, Mr. Subhash Chander Gupta is being paid pension directly by the respondent-Institute.

6. It is settled law that the contemptof Court is a quasi criminal act and the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach or wilful disobedience has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact. •r the Supreme Court inAllIndia Anna Dravida Munnetm Kazhagam vs. L.K. Tripathi and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 417 has held that expression wilful excludes casual, accidental/ bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with theterms of the order. It was further held thatthe petitioner who complains of breach of the court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disol)edience ofthe court's order.

7. In the present case, a Coordinate Bench while disposing of the present writ petition did not specifically direct payment of either CPF or revision of pay scale.

8. Though it is| the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that revision of pension, as well as CPF falls within the expression 'consequential i' benefits', yet this Court is of the view that in contempt jurisdiction it cannot hold anyone guilty by a process of deduction and that too on the basis of surmises and conjecWes.

9. In any event,i:the respondent-Institute on its part has written to the LIC to revise the pension but as the LIC was not a party tothe order dated 22"^^ April, 2014, the respondent cannot do anything more. It is also pertinent to mention thatLIC was not a party to the writpetition and, therefore, revision of pension cannot be given effect to by the respondents.

10. Consequently, present contempt petitions are closed and notices issued are discha,rged. However, petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate proceedings in acQ^rdance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressedany opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions ofall parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J APRIL 12,2017 ! m