Judgment & Order

1. This Contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of judgment and order, passed by this Court on 26.03.2025, in WP(C) No. 465 of 2023, wherein following directions were issued to the respondents:

               “In view of the above, the State-respondents are directed to examine and consider the case of the present petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Joint Director by creation of a supernumerary post like Sri John Calvin Debbarma, if he is otherwise found eligible to get promotion. As Sri Sanjit Rupini is not before this Court, no observation is being made in respect of said Sri Sanjit Rupini. In case, the petitioner is considered for promotion, his pay and allowances shall be fixed notionally with all financial benefits with effect from the date of promotion of other four persons till the date of his joining to the post of Joint Director. The entire exercise shall be completed within 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

               Needless to say, if any further grievance persists to the petitioner against the decision of the Respondents, he may approach appropriate authority in accordance with law.”

2. In compliance with the said direction, the State-respondents have issued an order on 17.05.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Joint Director. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:

               “…Whereas, grievance of the petitioner namely Sri Uttam Kumar Das, Programme Officer has been examined in accordance with law and upon examination the following has come to light:

               “It appears that name of the petitioner Sri Uttam Kumar Das, Programme officer does not come under the purview of promotion as no Scheduled caste (SC) post was available as per roster. Even he does not come under the supernumerary provisions as per new promotion policy dated 22.06.2021. Therefore, question of deprivation from promotion does not arise.”

               Now, therefore, in compliance to the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in W.P.(C) no.465 of 2023, the Department of Social Welfare & Social Education has on careful consideration of his case and decided to go with the guidelines of the State Government issued by the GA (P&T) Department vide Notification No.F.2(24)-GA(P&T)/2021, dated 22.06.2021. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is hereby regretted and stands disposed of in the above terms.”

3. Learned counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh submits that the operative portion of the Judgment as contained in paragraph No. 12 cannot be read isolated without reading the paragraph No. 9 to 11 and if, as a whole the Judgment is read out, it will be clearly evident that a specific direction was given to the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner by creating a supernumerary post and therefore, respondents, now, cannot deny the promotion.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Lodh further submits that the direction of the Court was very specific that a supernumerary post should be created first and thereafter, the respondents shall examine the credential of the petitioner for accommodating him against the said supernumerary post.

5. Learned counsel, further submits that in the contempt jurisdiction, now it is not permissible for the Court to go into the merit of the writ petition to examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get promotion or not. In support of his submission, he also relies on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jalim Singh Vs. Nand Kishore and Ors.; (Special Leave Petition(C) No.20915 of 2024) and relevant paragraph No. 13 as referred by him is extracted hereunder.

               "13. In such circumstances, it was impermissible for the High Court, while exercising its contempt jurisdiction, to expand the scope of inquiry by re-examining issues relating to regularisation or absorption of the appellant in a Class-III post. The jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is confined to examining compliance with the directions issued and does not extend to re-adjudication of issues which stand concluded."

6. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for drawing up a contempt proceeding against the respondents.

7. Learned Addl.GA, Mr. Mangal Debbarma referring to the Counter Affidavit submits that in due compliance of Judgment passed by this Court, the respondents thoroughly examined the issue and actually there are only 3(three) posts of Joint Director, out of which 2(two) posts are to be manned by UR candidate and 1(one) is to be manned by ST candidate and there was no post fixed for SC candidate. But, the petitioner is an SC candidate, and during the promotional exercise, 2(two) persons, namely, Shri Bijan Chakraborty and Dr. Chandrani Biswas were given promotion against UR quota and another person, namely, Shri Arun Kumar Debbarma was given promotion against ST quota. According to learned counsel, if there would not be Promotional Policy of 2021 issued by the State Government, said Arun Kumar Debbarma would be accommodated against UR quota and in that case his immediate junior, Shri John Calvin Debbarma would get promotion against ST quota, but, due to such promotional policy, said Arun Kumar Debbarma could not be accommodated against UR quota and thus, Shri John Calvin Debbarma has been deprived of getting promotion against ST quota. This is the reason, according to learned Addl.GA, Mr. Debbarma, as to why the department proposed for creation of 1(one) supernumerary post for giving him promotion, but, same is not possible in case of present petitioner, as there was no post meant for SC candidate.

8. In reply, learned counsel Mr. Lodh also submits that the pleas which are taken by the respondents now, were already taken by them in the main writ petition and such pleas were already turned down by this Court while passing this Judgment and therefore, same cannot be reopened again.

9. Court has considered the submissions of both sides. On reading of the said judgment dated 26.03.2025, passed in WP(C) 465 of 2023, it appears from the observations of the Court that the respondents failed to clarify as to why after fulfillment of three vacancies as per Replacement Roster Policy, only one supernumerary post was created to accommodate said John Calvin Debbarma whereas the other two persons including the petitioner were also senior to respondent no.8, Smt. Chandrani Biswas. But the State-respondents failed to give satisfactory reply thereto. It is also indicated in the judgment that liberty was thereafter granted to the learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Mangal Debbarma vide order dated 02.08.2024 to seek instructions about the cadre strength of the post of Joint Director and to seek instructions from the GA (P&T) Department and also from the parent department of the petitioner i.e. the Social Welfare & Social Education Department as to why only one supernumerary post was created, but the respondents again failed to answer the query of this Court made in this regard.

10. In that backdrop, while disposing the writ petition, the State-respondents were directed by the Court to examine and consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Joint Director by creation of a supernumerary post like John Calvin Debbarma, if he is found otherwise eligible to get promotion and in case the petitioner is considered for promotion, his pay and allowances shall be fixed notionally with all financial benefits with effect from the date of promotion of other four persons till the date of his joining to the post of Joint Director. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within 8(eight) weeks. It was also further directed that if any further grievance persists to the petitioner against the decision of the respondents, he may approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

11. In the said judgment, nowhere it was specifically directed to the State-respondents to give promotion to the present petitioner to the post of Joint Director rather, it was the direction of the Court to the said respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and to consider it for the purpose of promotion. According to the respondents, they have considered the case of the petitioner and have come to the decision that he was not entitled to get promotion. Unless there is a clear direction from the Court for giving promotion to the petitioner, the act of the respondents cannot be termed as wilful disobedience of the order of the Court or deliberate violation of the same. Contempt proceeding, therefore, according to this Court is not maintainable against the respondents.

12. In Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., In re v. Union of India, (2024) 19 SCC 193, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there are three sets of pre-conditions for holding a person as guilty for committing civil contempt i.e. (a) there must a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; (b) there must be disobedience of such a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court and (c) such a disobedience to a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court must be wilful.

13. In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai, (2023) 17 SCC 545, it has also been held that the expression or word “wilful” means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose.

14. In Indian Airports Employees’ Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee, (1999) 2 SCC 537, it has been further held that disobedience of orders of the Court , in order to amount to “civil contempt” under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 must be “wilful” and proof of mere disobedience is not sufficient.

15. In view of above position of law, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of discussion made here-in-above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no element of wilful disobedience of the Court’s order by the State-respondents, and therefore, the contempt proceeding is not maintainable.

16. In the judgment itself it was clearly stated that if any grievance further persists to the petitioner against the decision of the respondents, he may approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Therefore, liberty is always there with the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum ventilating his grievances against the order dated 17.05.2025, passed by the Director Social Welfare & Social Education, Govt. of Tripura, in accordance with law, but so far the contempt proceeding is concerned, same is not tenable in law and accordingly, the instant proceeding is closed.

The case is accordingly disposed of.