- (1.) This special appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23rd April, 2010 in a contempt proceedings, being Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1774 of 2008. However, the officers, against whom the charges have been framed, have preferred this appeal and the same is supported by the State.
(2.) Originally, an order was passed on 29th July, 1998 by a Division Bench of this Court to give appropriate pay scale to the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow. The said order was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 28th of November, 2007. After about a period of six months, the contempt application was filed on 11th May, 2008, which has given rise to the order impugned in the present appeal. The State also preferred a review petition before the Supreme Court against the order dated 28th November, 2007, which was dismissed on 23rd July, 2008. Thereafter, a compliance affidavit dated 17th November, 2008 was filed annexing the Office Order dated 14th November, 2008, but the learned Single Judge, hearing contempt matters, found that it was misleading and in the teeth of the judgment of this Court and passed an order, in detail, giving further opportunity to the appellants herein to comply the directions given the Court. Such order, according to us, is in the form of interpretation of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. A second compliance affidavit was filed on 25th May, 2009, which was also found to be misleading in nature by the learned Single Judge taking the contempt matters. Another compliance affidavit was filed providing pay protection and bifurcating the cadre in different pay scales to the Private Secretaries of the office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow. However, on closure scrutiny of the order, we find that the learned Single Judge wanted to find out the import by interpretation of the order and give effect of the same in his own way. However, sitting in the contempt jurisdiction, interpretation of the original order cannot be held to be justiciable nor advisable. In any event, ultimately the Court arrived at the following conclusions: Thus, there being a prima facie case for trial, the following charges are framed: You Shri S.M.A. Abdi, The Principal Secretary (Law) Government of Uttar Pradesh, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow show cause why he should not be tried and punished for willful and deliberate violation of the order and judgment of this Court dated 29.7.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996. You are further charged for filing false and misleading affidavits of compliance in this Court applying subterfuge to overcome the orders of this Court. You Shri Manjeet Singh, The Principal Secretary (Finance) Government of Uttar Pradesh, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow show cause why he should not be tried and punished for willful and deliberate violation of the order and judgment of this Court dated 29.7.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996. You are further charged for filing false and misleading affidavits of compliance in this Court applying subterfuge to overcome the orders of this Court. Your reply should be filed on or before 11.5.2010 after serving a copy on the counsel for the applicant who may file a reply thereto before the next date fixed. It is clarified that any observations or findings made or recorded herein above are only prima facie in nature and are subject to the replies which may be filed in response to the charges framed. List on 14.5.2010 when both the officers shall be present in person.
(3.) Here, a question arose before this Court whether the special appeal from such order, which is on the basis of the prima facie view of the Court of Contempt, can be held to be maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. To that, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted before this Court that in, Midnapore Peoples Co.op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 2190 similar question was considered and it was held by the Apex Court that against an order of the High Court deciding an issue or making any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the intra-Court appeal can be held to be maintainable. Relevant finding of the Supreme Court is available in sub-paragraph v. of paragraph 11 of such judgment, which is as follows: V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly.;