S P NANDA Vs. PRADYUMNA KUMAR PATTNAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeals Nos. 709-10 of 1990 at the instance of S. P. Nanda and other officers of the orissa State Financial Corporation and Criminal Appeals nos. 48-49 of 1991 by the orissa State Financial Corporation and others have a common object to achieve, inasmuch as the orders of the High court of orissa passed in contempt proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") are sought to be quashed and, in the alternative, for substantial modification.

(2.) It appears that in a bunch of writ petitions, the High court vide its judgment dated 11/1/1990 granted two reliefs to the writ petitioners, i. e. , (i) to grant them wages as ad hoc employees on a par with regular employees; and (ii) directing the Corporation to frame a scheme to envisage absorption of the writ petitioners to the regular service. Since there were no clear-cut directions to keep the writ petitioners on roll pending preparation of the scheme andconsideration of absorption, some orders came to be passed by the orissa State financial Corporation terminating the services of some of the writ petitioners but some orders were recalled on making fresh appointments. On contempt petitions being moved, the High court viewed the matter with some seriousness and came to the conclusion that the termination of services of some of the writ petitioners was "revengeful", and that the belated compliance of the orders of restoring them back to their jobs, attracted special costs to be awarded to the contempt petitioners. The measure fixed for the purpose was Rs. 2,500. 00 each. These special costs were ordered to be borne by the officers of the Corporation and not by the Corporation itself. These multiple views are the subject-matter of these appeals.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel. It is plain that the sum of Rs. 2,500. 00 awarded to each contempt petitioner, numbering 30, is the sum total of two heads of reckoning, namely, (i) revengeful termination of services- Rs. 2,000. 00 each and (ii) for delayed observance- Rs. 500. 00 each. As has been hinted earlier, nowhere had the High court been specific that the succeeding writ petitioners had to be kept in service pending preparation of the scheme and consideration of their absorption. We feel that the High court took rather a strict and an uncalled for view in insisting reinstatement of the writ petitioners and holding them entitled to special damages @ Rs. 2,000. 00 each for revengeful termination. This part of the order from any angle appears to us to be unsustainable There is nothing which the appellants can say against the orders imposing Rs. 500. 00 per person as costs for delayed compliance. That part of the order needs to be and is hereby sustained. Still, since these workers have been dragged to this court, we strike somewhat a balance between the two and modify the order to sustain payment of Rs. 1,000. 00 only to each contempt petitioner as special costs not only for delayed compliance but also for the costs incurred in this court. The impugned order of the High court would thus be substituted by this order of payment of Rs. 1,000. 00 each.