SAXENA, J. - (1.) - Heard.
(2.) THE contention of Shri Rajendra Mehta is that once the termination order of the petitioner was held to be illegal, the natural and necessary corollary thereof is that he was entitled for all consequential benefits. On the other hand, the respondents have simply reinstated the petitioner on the post of Work Charge Supervisor on a consolidated pay of Rs. 779. 50 per month, which he was getting on 15. 5. 82 at the time of his termination. According to him, now this post is a non-existent post for which even there is no budget provision. More-over all other similar Work Charge Supervisors have already been absorbed by the respondents as Junior Engineers and have been given regular pay- scale in normal course long back. In such circumstances,the petitioner is also entitled to be absorbed as Junior Engineer and fixed in the regular pay-scale in normal course. For this, Shri Mehta has relied upon the case of Pramod Kumar vs. Laxmi Narayan Sharma (1 ). I have gone through this ruling. In Pramod Kumar's case the court had set aside the termination, but no specific order giving consequential benefits was passed. It was held by a S. B. of this Court in a proceeding pending before it under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that when once the termination order was set aside then the petitioner-employee was entitled to get all the consequential benefits as if no termination order was passed. Shri Mehta has further relied on the case of Mohan Lal Vs. The Management of M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd. It was a case under section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein the Apex Court held that if the termination of the services is found to be illegal then a declaration must follow that the workman continues in service with consequential benefits. On the other hand Shri D. S. Shishodia, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this second contempt petition. He has submitted that this Court by its order dated 30. 7. 93 had dismissed petitioner's S. B. Contempt Petition No. 124/93 on his specific submission that the respondents had complied with the order of this Court and issued order of his reinstatement and also issued the cheque of the arrears of wages. This Court, thus, dropped those proceedings and discharged the notices issued against the respondents-contemners. Therefore, according to Shri Shishodia in such circumstances, this second contempt petition is legally not maintainable. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. This Court vide its judgment dated 18. 2. 93 passed in the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/82 had allowed the said writ petition, set aside the termination order dated 15. 5. 82 (Ex. 3) and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post which he was holding and to give him all back wages. In compliance thereof the respondents reinstated the petitioner on the post of Work Charge Supervisor, which he was holding on the date of his termination order dated 15. 5. 82 and also gave him all the back wages of the said post. Thus, in the judgment dated 18. 2. 1993, it was not specifically mentioned that the petitioner should be given all consequential benefits. On the other hand, it was mentioned that the respondents shall however be at liberty to take necessary action against the alleged misconducts of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Regulations, 1975. In such circumstances, it can not be held that this Court had implicitly ordered for consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the cases of Pramod Kumar and Mohan Lal (cited supra) do not render substantial assistance to the petitioner.
(3.) SINCE there was no specific order for giving the consequential benefits to the petitioner in this Court's order dated 18. 2. 93, it can not be contended now that the relief of consequential benefits was implicit in the said order. More-over, the petitioner in his earlier contempt petition (S. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 124/93) had specifically admitted that the respondents had complied with the order of this Court and issued the order for reinstatement of the petitioner and also issued cheque of the arrears. In view of that admission of the petitioner earlier contempt proceedings were dropped and the notices issued against the conlemners-respondents were discharged vide order dated 5. 7. 93. Contempt of Court proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings and the principle of autre fois acquit fully applies in such proceedings. The contem-ner-respondents, therefore, can not be put to double jeopardy. Hence this second contempt petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination by the respondents and has not been absorbed as Junior Engineer and given regular pay-scale thereof, which had admittedly been given to similarly appointed other Work Charge Supervisors, then he should seek his legal remedy by way of filing a separate writ petition. But certainly in this contempt petition, no such relief can be given to him. ;