GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by Vidhyut Nigam, and the State, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1. 3. 2006, passed in S. B. Contempt Petition No. 220/1997. The order is sought to be challenged in both the appeals, on a common ground, of the order having the effect of enlarging the scope of the original order, for the disobedience whereof, the contempt petition was filed. It is contended, that this was not within the permissible scope of the contempt jurisdiction. The learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court, rendered by the Division Bench, presided by the same learned Judge, who has passed the impugned order, being in University of Rajasthan vs. Dr. S. C. Gupta, reported in 2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 600.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order, firstly, on the ground, that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2. 5. 1997, for disobedience whereof, the contempt petition was filed, did clearly comprehend the relief, as is granted by the impugned order in the contempt proceedings, and secondly, in any case, when the employer itself has given identical treatment to other persons, if the learned Single Judge directed for giving identical treatment, confining it to these 14 employees, no interference is required to be made, even on equitable considerations. The maintainability of the present appeal was also questioned. We have considered the submissions. A look at the judgment in Dr. S. C. Gupta's case (supra), shows, that in that case also, writ petition was decided vide order dated 16. 10. 1992, directing respondent University to include the name of the petitioner, in the list of the candidates, interviewed by the University of Rajasthan, for the post of Associate Professor (Reader) under the Rules, governing the department of Economic Administration and Financial Management, which was included, and he was subjected to selection and selected. Then, a contempt petition was filed, seeking implementation of the order dated 16. 10. 1992, and while deciding that petition, a direction was given, that keeping in view the seniority of the petitioner, as per the Career Advancement Scheme, since the petitioner has already been promoted, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16. 10. 1992, as he was found suitable, the Court was of the view, that the respondents should have made proper placement of the petitioner, in order of seniority vis--vis Dr. S. K. Batra, who was immediately junior to the petitioner, from the date of joining, since the petitioner had joined the University prior to Dr. S. K. Batra, and consequently, ranked senior, and the respondents were directed to publish the final seniority list within a period of four weeks, and provisional seniority list, published earlier, dated 29. 8. 1997, was directed to stand modified. This order was challenged on the ground, that the learned Single Judge travelled beyond his jurisdiction, while issuing such directions in a contempt petition. In that case the question of the maintainability of the appeal was also raised and gone into. Regarding the question of maintainability reliance was placed by the Division Bench, on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & ors. vs. Chunilal Nanda, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the position as under: 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 Court appeal 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 ). " In our view, this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court read with the above D. B. judgment in Dr. S. C. Gupta's case, is a complete answer to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent, about maintainability of the present appeal. Thus the objection against the maintainability of the present appeal is turned down. Then, considering the matter on merits, i. e. examining the sustainability of the directions, given in the contempt proceedings, in para 12, it was held, that the thing is no more res-integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. O. I. & Ors. vs. Subedar Devassy, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 613. Thus, relying upon this judgment in Subedar Devassy's case, it was held in para 13 as under:      " 13. Considering the above referred judgments, we have no hesitation in holding that while disposing of the contempt petition and the Misc. Application, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are beyond the scope of the judgment sought to be implemented as the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of its implementation. The said directions passed by the learned Single Judge on 12. 2. 1997 while deciding contempt petition & order dated 5. 5. 1999 deciding the misc. application are liable to be set aside. However, if under these directions some benefit has been extended to the respondent, the same will not be recovered back from him. "
(3.) IN the present case, a look at the order dt. 2. 5. 1997 does show, that though the order was passed relying upon the earlier judgment in RSEB Retired Employees Association vs. Rajasthan State Electricity board, reported in 1992 (1) RLR 346, and other circumstances. However, the writ petition was allowed in the following manner:      " Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent that the members of the petitioner's Association whose names are mentioned in Schedule A and B who were permanently transferred to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and who were alive on 17. 10. 87 and are entitled to opt for payment of pension on the basis of the period spent by them in Govt. service from the date they entered into the service of erstwhile Jodhpur State till the date of the permanent absorption with the Board. They are further entitled to all other retiral benefits according to the rules. The amount of Govt. contribution towards their Contributory Provident Fund account plus interest paid thereon and other retirement benefits already paid to them shall be adjusted against their pensionary and other retirement benefits payable to them in pursuance of exercise of option as per this order. The widows of such CPF holders who have expired before 17. 10. 87 will not be entitled to family pension, but they will be entitled to get ex-gratia payment @ 150/- per month w. e. f. 1. 11. 91 in addition to the admissible dearness allowance. However, it is clarified that the members of the petitioner's association who were directly appointed with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board will not be entitled for the aforesaid benefit. . . . . . . . . . . . " A bare reading of this part of the order, which is the precise order in favour of the writ petitioners, does show, that this Court had granted relief to a very limited extent, and to named, & specified persons, as appearing in Schedule A and B. It is also significant to note, that the writ petition was filed by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Mandal Seva Nivrat Karamchari Sangh, through its President, claiming to be representing the common cause, with respect to pension of the persons, who had retired from Board's services, and since there was a common cause, and common grievance, and individually the persons were not in a position to approach this Court, therefore, the retired persons had decided to form an association, and the writ petition was filed to espouse their cause, with respect to pensionary benefits, and other alike matters. In such circumstances, the relief, as granted by this Court, vide order dated 2. 5. 1997, obviously, was not available to any other category of persons, or individuals, other than those, mentioned in Schedule A and B of that writ petition, and to the extent awarded, much less was it open to the learned Single Judge, exercising contempt jurisdiction, to enlarge the scope of relief, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Subedar Devassy's case (supra ). Then, a look at the order, impugned before us shows, that in para 1, it has been noticed, that it is brought to the notice of the Court, that the respondents are making exercise for implementation of the Court's direction dated 2. 5. 1997 for grant of pension, and other benefits, as directed in the course of the judgment, sought to be implemented. ;