SHRI N. K. JANU,DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY DIVISION, AGRA AND OTHERS versus LAKSHMI CHANDRA
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 618, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
SHRI N. K. JANU,DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY
DIVISION, AGRA AND OTHERS
v.
LAKSHMI CHANDRA
(Civil Appeal No. 3740 of 2019)
APRIL 10, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Jurisdiction – Respondent filed writ
petition – Disposed of – Judgment affirmed by Supreme Court inter
alia holding that the daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale
as received by their counter-parts in the Government – Respondent
again filed writ petition – Directions passed vide order dtd. 23.10.08
– In terms of such order, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry
Division Agra, passed order that the respondent was not eligible
for regularisation/equal pay – Contempt Application (C) No.1632
of 2009 filed by the respondent – Various orders passed seeking
personal presence of the officers of the State – Appellants eventually
filed Special Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to approach the High Court by filing Review Petition –
Appellants filed Review Petition – Dismissed for want of prosecution
on 06.12.2017 – Application for recall of said order – Dismissed –
On appeal, held: Once an order was passed by the Department, it
was open to the respondent to challenge the said order by way of
writ petition, but the contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked –
Order of the Court on 23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the
respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of
minimum regular pay scale – Since the appellants 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 –
High Court exceeded the contempt jurisdiction to compel the officers
of the State to appear in court – Grievance regarding regularization
of the service on account of break in service could not have been
taken up in contempt proceedings – High Court not justified in
passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers –
Orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless
proved otherwise – Contempt Application dismissed – Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts
Rules, 2001.
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 618
618
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Once an order had been passed by the
Department, it was open to the respondent to challenge the said
order by way of a Writ Petition, but the Contempt Jurisdiction
could not be invoked.  The Contempt Court is to ensure that the
order of the Court is complied with.  The order of the Court on
23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the respondent for
regularization of his services and for payment of minimum regular
pay scale. Since the appellants 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
High Court exceeded the Contempt Jurisdiction to compel the
officers of the State to appear in court and in fact, the High Court
travelled much beyond the orders passed by the Single Bench
on 23.10.2008.  [Paras 15, 16][627-B-D]
1.2 Grievance regarding regularization of the service on
account of a break in service could not have been taken up in
Contempt proceedings, when such issue had attained finality in
the High Court. The High Court was not justified in passing orders
from time to time to secure presence of the officers. The officers
of the State discharge public functions and duties. The orders
are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved
otherwise. The officers pass orders as a custodian of public money.
Therefore, merely because an order has been passed, it does
not warrant their personal presence.
The summoning of officers
to the court to attend proceedings, impinges upon the functioning
of the officers and eventually it is the public at large who suffer
on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them.
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. If an
order is not legal, the Courts have ample jurisdiction to set aside
such order and to issue such directions as may be warranted in
the facts of the case. Entire proceedings in Contempt Application
No.1632 of 2009 were wholly unjustified and in excess of
jurisdiction vested with the Contempt Court.  The Contempt
Application is dismissed. [Paras 21-23][630-A-E]
SHRI N.K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
State of U.P. and Others v. Putti Lal (1998) 1 UPLBEC
313 ; State of U.P and Others. v. Putti Lal (2006) 9
SCC 337 ; Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division
and Another v. Lakshmi Chandra (2016) 4 SCC 721 ;
State of U.P. and Others v. Chhiddi and Others 2016
(1) ALJ 226 ; Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others v.
Shri Hari Shankar (2011) ILLJ 581 All ; Surendra
Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others Judgment
dated 24.9.2015 of Allahabad High Court in Special
Appeal No. 1016 of 2005 ; Visheshwar v. Principal
Secretary Forest Anubhag-3 and Others Civil Misc.
Judgment dated 29.11.2004 of Allahabad High Court
in  Writ Petition No. 47568 of 2002 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1998) 1 UPLBEC 313
referred to
Para 3
(2006) 9 SCC 337
referred to
Para 3
(2016) 4 SCC 721
referred to
Para 8
2016 (1) ALJ 226
referred to
Para 9
(2011) ILLJ 581 All
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3740
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2018 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 10605
of 2018 in Special Appeal No. 261 of 2016.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Dubey, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra,
Kamlendra Mishra, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pankaj Srivastava (for Prashant Bhushan), Adv. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order
dated
16.02.2018 whereby an application for recall of the order dated 06.12.2017
dismissing the Review Application in default was dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
3. The case has a chequered history. The respondent initially filed
a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36896 of 1992.  The said Writ Petition
was disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court reported as State of U.P. and Others vs. Putti
Lal1.  The said judgment has been affirmed by this Court in State of
U.P and Others. vs. Putti Lal2 decided on 21.02.2002. This Court
held that the daily wagers are entitled to minimum pay scale as is being
received by their counter-parts in the Government and would not be
entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as
daily wagers. It was further ordered that since statutory Rules, namely,
the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group
‘D’ Posts Rules, 20013 have been framed, therefore, question of framing
any further scheme by the State does not arise.
4. The respondent again filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43443
of 2004 after the said order was passed by this Court. The said Writ
Petition was disposed of on 23.10.2008 with the following directions:
 “Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages
Appointments on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 has been interpreted
by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Visheshwar Vs. Principal
Secretary, Forest Anubbhag-3 and this Court in the said case has
held that in case the employee is working on the cut off date and
is continuing as such on daily wage post on the date of proclamation
of
the notification of the aforesaid Rules, he is entitled for
regularisation, inspite of the fact that the employee worked
intermittently. In the instant case, the petitioner, as stated by the
counsel for the petitioner, has been engaged in the year 1983,
though has worked intermittently, but regularly till 2001 and as
such he is entitled consideration for regularisation of his Service,
in view of the provision of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules as
interpreted by this Court in the Case of Visheshwar Vs. Principal
Secretary, Forest (Supra). In view of above, without going into
the merits of the case the Opp. Parties are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the
Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on
Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 for regularisation of his Services
1(1998)1UPLBEC 313
2(2006) 9 SCC 337
3Rules 2001
SHRI N. K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
and with regard to the payment of minimum of the regular pay
scale in accordance with law as well as the law laid down by the
Apex Court and by this Court expeditiously, preferably within three
months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this
order.”
5. In terms of such order, the Divisional Director, Social Forestry
Division Agra, passed an order on 19.11.2008 that the respondent is not
eligible for regularisation/equal pay.  The relevant extract of the order
reads as under:
“Because, the aforesaid daily wager was not found working
continuously. Therefore, Sri Lakshmi Chandra does not come under
the category of eligibility for regularisation/equal pay. There is a
clear cut direction in S.L.P No. 3393/1999, SLP No. 91/03,
01/95(Secretary of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi)
of Hon’ble Supreme Court, order dated 10.04.2005 that those
persons whose appointment has been made without any selection
procedure, cannot be eligible for regularisation against permanent
post.
Therefore, after due consideration the undersigned has decided
that Sri Lakshmi Chandra S/o Sri Pati Ram is not found eligible
for regularisation/equal pay and the benefits of U.P. Daily Wager
Appointment Rules 2001 Group-D cannot be accrued to him.
Therefore, his representation dated 06.11.2008 is hereby disposed
off.”
6. The respondent instead of challenging the above order declining
the claim for regularisation and/or minimum of
pay scale filed a Contempt
Application (C) No. 1632 of 2009.  In such Contempt Petition, a notice
was issued to the present appellants when the following order was passed
on 08.05.2009:
“It is alleged that the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by this Court
has been violated. From perusal of the petition, a prima facie case
is made out.
Issue notices to the opposite parties within a week returnable
within six weeks. The opposite parties need not appear in person
at this stage.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
The counter affidavit may be filed within the aforesaid periods
of else charges may be framed after summoning the notice.
However, one more opportunity is granted to the opposite parties
to comply with the order within a month, with the notices fixing a
date after six weeks.”
7. It is thereafter, on 29.06.2009 an order was passed by the
appellants that Rs. 2550/- as minimum of pay scale of Rs.2550 – 3200/
- has been sanctioned to the respondent.  Thereafter, an order on
31.08.2009 was passed by the Court as to why the respondent is being
paid minimum monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 2550/- though, minimum
pay scale of Group ‘D’ employees has been fixed to   Rs. 6050/-.
Thereafter numerous orders were passed from time to time seeking
personal presence of the officers of the State.  An order was passed on
03.12.2009, directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. to
ensure that accurate eligibility and seniority list be drawn up in all the
divisions and be finalised after hearing the incumbents. The said order
reads as under:
“ Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. and Principal
Secretary (Forest) are present in person.
The Forest Department of the State use to employee daily wagers
for execution of its work in various schemes and projects and
they continue for decades together. The issue of their regularisation
was decided by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court
which directed the State
to frame a scheme for regularisation of
such daily wagers. In pursuance thereof, the Government enacted
U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ‘D’
Posts Rules, 2001. Under the Rules the Authorities were directed
to draw an eligibility and seniority list for the purposes of
regularisation and the selection committee was to take decision
on its basis.
Issue of break in service was also considered by this Court in
various writ petitions and it was held that if the incumbent has
been working from the cut of date till the invoking of the Rules of
2001, though with breaks, he should be considered in accordance
with the directions given. Large number of writ petitions had been
filed and allowed on the basis of the aforesaid Rules and the
SHRI N. K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
judgments. However, the Court has been flooded with contempt
applications alleging non-compliance in letter and spirit. In various
cases this Court has come across where either compliance has
been refused on imaginary ground or on the basis of fake seniority
and eligibility list and even if compliance was made, citing paucity
of posts, the employee was given only the minimum scale.
This petition has been heard at length and on pointed queries the
officers present admit that seniority and eligibility list has not been
prepared in various divisions. It has also been brought on record
that persons who had never worked in the department have also
been appointed and regularized:
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. shall ensure
that accurate eligibility and seniority list is drawn up in all the
divisions and be finalized after hearing the incumbents and Court
be duly informed on the next date. Reply of rejoinder affidavit be
also filed.
List for further orders on 25.2.2010.”
8. The said order was challenged by the appellants in Special
Appeal No. 215 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The Special Appeal No. 215/2010 was dismissed. The orders passed by
the High Court became subject matter of challenge before this Court.
This Court in a judgment reported as Deputy Director, Social Forestry
Division and Another vs. Lakshmi Chandra4 directed the Principal
Secretary to the Department of Forests,
U.P. and Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests to file separate affidavits before the High Court
on the implementation of the orders to ensure that the wages are paid to
the workmen in terms of orders passed within three months. This Court
also requested the High Court to take into consideration all the subsequent
developments to reach a logical conclusion in terms of the orders passed
by this Court. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court
on 17.02.2016.
9. The Contempt Application (C) No. 1632 of 2009 was again
taken up for hearing by the High Court on 30.3.2016. It was ordered
that it is no longer open to the Department to take plea that all the daily
wage employees, whether they have been considered for regularization
or not, are not entitled to the minimum of the pay scale. The plea of the
4(2016) 4 SCC 721
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
625
Department on the strength of Division Bench judgment in State of
U.P. and Others vs. Chhiddi and Others5 may not be available in
view of the order of this Court.
10. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 261 of 2016 – N.K. Janu and
Others vs. Lakshmi Chandra. The Court observed that the order in
Chhiddi’s case (supra) is contrary to another Division Bench judgment
in Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. Shri Hari Shankar6 and
that there is no occasion for the Court to intervene in the matter now on
the strength of order in Chhiddi’s case (supra) in view of the order of
the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Chandra’s case (supra). It was
observed that it is open to the State to approach this Court to seek
clarification. The Court observed as under:
“The Order passed by Apex Court dated 02.02.2016, in effect
clearly reflects for ensuring enforcement of orders passed on
earlier occasion, in view of this in our considered opinion it is true
that there is a Division Bench judgement in the case of State of
U.P. Vs. Chhiddi and others, Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007
that takes altogether contrary view to the judgment in the case of
Special Appeal No. 1205 of 2010, Chanchal Kumar Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. In normal course of business, in case there are two
judgments on the same subject matter holding altogether contrary
directions, the matter would have been referred to Full Bench for
reconciliation of the
situation but here fact of the matter is that
matter is emanating out of an order passed by Apex Court dated
02.02.2016.
In view of this in the facts of the case once reliance has been
placed by the State on the orders passed by Division Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 to which it has
been informed by Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate that review
application has already been filed. Once the order passed by
learned Single Judge is in tune with the order passed by Apex
Court, in Civil Appeal No. 879-883, then there is no occasion for
us to intervene with the said order, and it is always open to the
State and its agencies to approach Apex Court alongwith
clarificatory application in the light of the judgment passed by
52016 (1) ALJ 226 (Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 decided on 24.09.2015)
6(2011) ILLJ 581 All
SHRI N. K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Division Bench on subsequent occasion in Special Appeal No.
1530 of 2007 so that situation may be reconciled.”
11. In terms of the liberty granted, the State filed IA 29-33 of
2016 in Lakshmi Chandra’s case (supra). The said applications were
withdrawn on 25.07.2016. It is thereafter, the appellants filed Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No……. /2016 CC No. 25207 of 2016. The Special
Leave to Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach
the High Court by filing Review Petition. The order reads as under:
 “After some arguments, Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw
this petition with liberty to approach the High Court by way of
filing review petition to establish that the respondent was not
continuously employed from 1992 to 2001.
Permission, as sought for, is granted.
Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn
with the aforesaid liberty.”
12. It is thereafter, appellants filed a Review Petition No. 313796
of 2017 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the order
dated 07.04.2016 passed in Special Appeal No. 261 of 2016.  The Review
Petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing of the
Review Petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court for want of
prosecution on 06.12.2017. It is the said application for recall of order
dated 06.12.2017 which remained unsuccessful which is the
subject
matter of the challenge in the present appeal.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that the
respondent has been paid minimum of pay scale and that he attained the
age of superannuation on 31.7.2018 and stands retired. It is contended
that the direction of this Court is in two parts- (i) to pay minimum of pay
scale to all daily wagers as per the direction of this Court in Putti Lal’s
case (supra) and (ii) to consider regularization of the workers in terms
of statutory Rules framed. Since the minimum of pay scale stands paid
to the respondent, the dispute in such respect does not survive.
14. However, in respect of regularization of the services, it is
argued that there is no evidence that the respondent has worked on daily
wages from the year 1994 to 2000 i.e. for approximately seven years.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
Thereafter, he has worked intermittently from 2001 to 2003 as a daily
wager and that there is no record available that the respondent worked
from December 2003. Therefore, his claim for regularization was not
accepted when an order was passed on 19.11.2008.
15. Once an order has been passed by the Department, it was
open to the respondent to challenge the said order by way of a Writ
Petition, but the Contempt Jurisdiction could not be invoked.  The
Contempt Court is to ensure that the order of the Court is complied with.
The order of the Court on 23.10.2008 was to consider the case of the
respondent for regularization of his services and for payment of minimum
regular pay scale.
16. 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 High Court has exceeded
the Contempt Jurisdiction to compel the officers of the State to appear
in court and in fact, the High Court travelled much beyond the orders
passed by the Single Bench on 23.10.2008.
17. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
that the question of regularization has been considered by the Division
Bench of the High Court in a judgment in Chhiddi’s case (supra)
wherein, issue of minimum of pay scale as well as artificial break in
service was examined in the matter of regularization of the services in
terms of the Rules framed.  In respect of break in
service the Court held
as under:
“Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the directions issued by
the learned Judge on 17 October 2005 to the State Government,
while partly allowing the writ petitions, to reconsider the cases of
the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services by ignoring
the minimum educational qualifications or the physical endurance
requirement prescribed in the service rules with a further direction
that until then all the petitioners who were still working should be
allowed to continue on a daily wage basis and be paid the minimum
of the pay-scale, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set
aside. The State Government shall consider the cases of the daily
wagers in the light of the observations made above and by ignoring
the artificial breaks in their engagement as daily wagers.”
SHRI N. K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
18. Still further, Allahabad High Court in a judgment reported as
Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others7 held
that period of two years cannot be treated as an artificial break which
can be overlooked for the purpose of claim of regularization.  The Court
held as under:
“The learned Judge found that in the chart giving details of the
engagement of the writ petitioners as daily wagers, the column
relating to working in the year 2001-02 was left blank and against
the year 2013, it was mentioned that both the writ petitioners were
working from February 2003 and July 2003 respectively. The
learned Judge also recorded a finding that the writ petitioners had
failed to discharge the burden of establishing that they were working
on daily wages in the Forest Department during the relevant period
and the contention of the writ petitioners that they had been
working without payment of any wages was also not accepted
for the reason that it was difficult to believe that the writ petitioners
would be actually working for two years without payment of
wages.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if
the writ petitioners had not worked for some period, then too the
break should be treated as artificial break and should have been
overlooked for the purpose of considering their claim for
regularisation.
In the present case, the writ petitioners had not worked on daily
wage basis for a long period of
two years. This break cannot be
treated to be an artificial break in the service. The writ petitioners
did not satisfy the essential requirements contained in the 2001
Rules. They were, therefore, not entitled for regularisation under
the 2001 Rules.”
19. The learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court passed an
order reported as Visheshwar vs. Principal Secretary Forest
Anubhag-3 and Others8, wherein, it was held that artificial break in
the case of regularization has to be ignored.  The Court held as under:
“In all these cases, I find that the consideration for regularisation
was denied by the Selection Committee on the ground of short
7Special Appeal No. 1016 of 2005 decided on 24.9.2015
8Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47568 of 2002 decided on 29.11.2004
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
breaks in service.  According to the stand taken in the counter
affidavit, a policy was adopted at the Divisional Level to exclude
all those persons, who had not contemplated 240 days of work in
one calendar year. This consideration in my opinion was wholly
arbitrary as we are not dealing with the question of retrenchment
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  On the contrary I find
that in Allahabad Division the Conservator of Forest/Regional
Director, Social Forestry, U.P. Allahabad in the matter of similarly
situate persons for regularisation ignored this policy and directed
that in interpreting the word ‘continuing in service’, any short beak
may be ignored with the condition that the person has been
employed subsequent on daily wages.  Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
Additional chief Standing Counsel submits that this order was
immediately recalled. Sri Pankaj Srivastava submits that even alien
recalling of the order, the regularisation obtained with interpretation
given in the order were not cancelled. Be that as it may, since I
am the holding that an artificial break in case of regularisation has
to be ignored I need not to decide this question.”
20. The said order was also a subject-matter of challenge in
Special Appeal No. 305 of 2015. The Court allowed the appeal in respect
of payment of minimum pay scale but upheld the finding in respect of
break in service.  The relevant extract from the order reads as under:
“The writ petitioner had contended that
there was no justification
for excluding his case for regularisation under the Rules only for
the reason that there were some breaks in service while working
as daily wagers. The learned Judge held that artificial breaks have
to be ignored and, therefore, directed the respondents to consider
the case of the writ petitioner for regularisation afresh. It was
further directed that in case the petitioner was still in employment,
he should be continued and should be paid the minimum of the
pay scale till his case was considered as had been directed by the
Supreme Court in State of U.P & Ors. Vs. Putti Lal.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants has
stated that the appellants are not aggrieved by the direction issued
for ignoring the artificial breaks in the service but the direction by
the learned Judge to pay the minimum of the pay scale to the writ
petitioner should be set aside.”
SHRI N. K. JANU, DEP. DIR. SOCIAL FORESTARY DIV., AGRA
v. LAKSHMI CHANDRA [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
21. Thus, we find that the grievance regarding regularization of
the service on account of a break in service could not have been taken
up in Contempt proceedings, when such issue has attained finality in the
High Court.
22. Having said so, we find that the High Court was not justified
in passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers.
The officers of the State discharge public functions and duties.  The
orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved
otherwise.  The officers pass orders as a custodian of public money.
Therefore, merely because an order has been passed, it does not warrant
their personal presence. The summoning of officers to the court to attend
proceedings, impinges upon the functioning of the officers and eventually
it is the public at large who suffer on account of their absence from the
duties assigned to them. 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. If
an order is not legal, the Courts have ample jurisdiction to set aside such
order and to issue such directions as may be warranted in the facts of
the case.
23. In view of the above discussion, we find that the entire
proceedings in Contempt Application No. 1632 of 2009 are wholly
unjustified and in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Contempt Court.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the Contempt Application is
dismissed.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.