TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doing clerical work similar to those of lower division clerks in the department they have not been given the benefit provided under the Government Order No.3868-F dated 31.3.1984. In the said Government Order it was ordered, inter alia, that members of the Lower Division Clerical cadre will be entitled to promotion to the Upper Division Clerical cadre on the ratio of 1:1 and the order was applicable to Lower Division Clerks/Assistants in all Government Departments and Directorates including the Directorate of Dairy Development. The further grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were denied the benefit of promotion and consequent financial benefits envisaged under the aforementioned Government order merely for the reason that designation of the posts held by them was clerk-cum-cash collector and not Lower Division Clerk/Assistant. It was the case of the petitioners that the duties discharged by them are similar to those of the Lower Division Assistants and in addition to such duties they also do the work of collection of cash. Therefore, there was no justification, to deny them the benefits of the aforementioned Government order. The petitioners sought the following r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of Lower Division Assistants; that they were holding ex-cadre posts; that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the writ petitioners were not similar to those performed by Lower Division Assistants, and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of promotion and consequential financial benefits as envisaged in the Government order No.3868-F dated 31.3.1984. A learned single Judge of the High Court by the judgment dated 15th May, 1986 disposed of the writ petition holding, inter alia, that : "Channel of promotion, method of recruitment, and the nature of duties and mode of creation of the Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors being different from Lower Division Clerks, the ratio of 1:1 in the matters of promotion could not be conferred upon the Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors." In the writ appeal filed by the writ petitioners assailing the judgment of the single Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment rendered on 29.2.1988 set aside the judgment and ordered that the petitioners should be given the benefits due in terms of the order being order No.3868-F dated 31.3.1984. The operative portion of the judgment runs as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot satisfied with the Government Order issued in January 1991 and the consequential benefits of promotion given to them by implementing the said order the writ petitioners filed an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging, inter alia that the respondents in the writ petition have failed to comply with the judgment/order of the High Court in its entirety and in its letter and spirit. The petitioners made the following prayers in the petition : "a) Rule NISI do issue calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be committed to prison or to suitably be dealt with for committing the acts of contempt as enumerated in paragraph 7 in the foregoing petition; b) If the respondents fail to show adequate cause the Rule NISI be made absolute; c) Order be passed directing the respondents and each one of them to act in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 29th February, 1988 in Appeal from Original order being No.561 of 1987 and to prepare a common gradation list of Lower Division Clerical Cadre taking into account the post of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector and to give due benefits to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der or direction for treating the ex-cadre posts of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector as posts in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk/Assistant and for preparation of a combined seniority list including the holders (writ petitioners and others)of such ex-cadre post, in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk/Assistants. It was the further submission of the learned counsel that not only the ordering portion of the judgment but also in the entire judgment the question of common gradation list has neither been discussed nor any finding recorded. In the absence of any adjudication on the question and any order or direction to that effect in the judgment the appellants could not have been held to have acted in a contumacious manner in not treating the writ petitioners as members of the cadre of Lower Division Assistant and in not preparing a common gradation list. Shri Gobind Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supporting the judgment/order under challenge strenuously contended that preparation of a common seniority list was specifically prayed for in the writ petition and when the Division Bench allowed the appeal and granted the reliefs sought by the writ petitioners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts. Judging the case in hand on the touchstone of the principles noted above, we find that the directions issued by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in effect granted substantive reliefs not cover....