Gurudeep Singh vs Regonda Srinivas

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2023 INSC 617 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 128/2023

GURUDEEP SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 92/2023

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA J.

The present Appeals arise out of the judgment dated

30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776/2022 passed by the High Court

of the State of Telangana whereby the Appellants, who are the

Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager (Human

Resources) of the Company –NTPC Ltd. have been sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs.

2,000, by allowing the Contempt Case filed by the respondents

herein.

2. The present appeals have been filed primarily on the ground

that there has been no wilful and deliberate disobedience or non-

compliance by the Appellants of the common judgment dated Signature Not Verified

17.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.07.12 11:24:42 IST Reason:

277/2020.

1

3. The present case pertains to the claim of Respondents and

other similarly placed land oustees as Junior Mazdoors on the basis

of a tripartite agreement in the year 1988 between NTPC Ltd. with

the land oustees.

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading upto these appeals are that

the Respondents herein and similarly situated persons were the

absolute owners and possessors of the lands of various extents

situated at different villages in Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar

District. The said lands were acquired by NTPC prior to 1980 and an

award was passed, awarding compensation for the acquisition of the

said lands. The land oustees were proposed to be recruited by the

NTPC as Junior Mazdoor. On 15.05.2015, the NTPC issued an

employment notification bearing number 2 of 2015 for sponsoring the

names of the eligible land oustees to fill 25 posts of Junior

Mazdoors in NTPC.

5. W.P. No. 26043/2016 was filed by an aggrieved land oustee

assailing the aforesaid notification issued by NTPC in the year

2015 and the recruitment process undertaken by NTPC Ltd. pursuant

to the said notification and the same was set aside by the Ld.

Single Judge of the High Court as the mode of recruitment provided

for was only through interview.

6. Another round of litigation ensued as NTPC issued a

notification (No. 01 of 2017) dated 09.03.2017 to recruit junior

mazdoors, which was also challenged before the High Court. The

Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana, in

2 W.A.No.277 of 2020 directed NTPC to conclude the entire process of

recruitment in pursuance of Notification No.01 of 2017 within two

months from the date of the said judgment dated 17.12.2021.

7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 17.12.2021,

a fresh recruitment Notification bearing No.1 of 2022 was issued

and the recruitment process was initiated and the Employment

Notification No.01 of 2017, dated 09.03.2017 was cancelled.

8. While matters stood thus, the Respondents herein filed a

Contempt Petition bearing No. 776 of 2022 praying to punish the

Appellants herein for deliberately not obeying/implementing and

deliberately flouting the orders of the High Court dated 17.12.2021

and to hold the Appellants in contempt of Court. By the impugned

judgment dated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776 of 2022, the

High Court concluded that there were deliberate and wilful laches,

omissions and commissions on the part of the Appellants herein in

spite of being fully aware of the implication of the judgment dated

17.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, and therefore,

the High Court allowed the contempt case and directed that the

Appellants shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two

(02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand

only) each, within four (04) weeks from the date of the judgment.

9. The key observations of the High Court of Telangana in the

impugned judgment are as follows:

a. That the Appellants ought to have completed the process of

recruitment following the Notification No.01 of 2017 dated

3 09.03.2017 within a period of two months from the date of

judgment and issued consequential appointment orders within

such time.

b. That the Appellants were the key persons in issuing the

Notification No.01 of 2022 and attempting to wish away the

judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the

High Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch.

c. That the Appellants and NTPC Ltd. had demonstrated their scant

respect to the law and the Order of the High Court by not

making any efforts to comply with the orders of the Court dated

17.12.2021.

d. That instead of completing the recruitment process as directed

by the High Court, the Appellants violated the orders of the

Court by issuing a fresh notification (Notification No.1 of

2022 dated 01.02.2022) and cancelled the recruitment process

initiated vide Employment Notification No.01 of 2017, dated

09.03.2017.

e. The High Court took note of the unconditional apology tendered

by the Appellants but declined to accept the same by holding

that they deserved no leniency.

Aggrieved by the said observations of the High Court, the

present appeals have been filed by the Contemnors-Appellants.

10. We have heard learned Solicitor General for the appellants

and Mr. Arun K.Sinha learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

4

11. During the course of submissions, learned Solicitor

General drew our attention to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the impugned

judgment which read as under:-

“10. In view of the circumstances of the case, though an unconditional apology is tendered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the manner in which they deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court, they deserve no leniency and this Court is declined to accept such unconditional apology.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.277 of 2020 and batch, on 17.12.2021 and they are liable to be punished for the same.

12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) each, within four (04) weeks from today. The petitioners are directed to deposit subsistence allowance @ Rs.500/- per day within four (04) weeks. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks from today.”

He submitted that the High Court ought to have accepted the

unconditional apology tendered by the appellants herein as there

was clearly no deliberate and willful disobedience of the order

passed by the High Court on 17.12.2021.

In this regard, our attention was drawn to the order dated

17.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ

Appeal Nos.270, 277 and 268 of 2020, the relevant portion of the

said order reads as under:

“The NTPC is going ahead with the process of selection for the post of Group “D” employees based upon the policy decision to grant employment to the land oustees and since 2017 the recruitment is held up on account of litigation. The NTPC has adopted

5 a transparent procedure by holding a written examination and has amended the rules also and this Court does not find any fault with the decision taken by the NTPC in setting aside the Notification dated 15.05.2015 and by issuing a fresh Notification on 12.03.2017. Even if it is assumed that the NTPC has earlier held the process of interview, the process of recruitment was not finalised and no appointments were made by the NTPC pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.05.2015 and it is a well settled proposition of law that inclusion in the selection list does not confer a right upon an individual for appointment.

The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated 15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is now adopting a transparent process, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The NTPC is directed to conclude the entire process of subject recruitment within a period of two months from today issue consequential appointment orders.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Learned Solicitor General submitted that having regard to the

directions issued by the High Court to conclude the entire process

of recruitment within a period of two months from that day and to

make the consequential appointment orders, the process of

appointment was taken forward, the select list has also been made.

However, the appointment orders have only been provisionally

issued in view of the Contempt Petition initiated by the

respondents herein.

He submitted that this is a case where this Court may

interfere in the matter and pass an appropriate order.

6 12. Learned counsel Mr. Arun K. Sinha submitted that the reasons

as to why the respondents were constrained to file the Contempt

Petition was on account of the fact that the respondents were the

land oustees who are entitled to be considered for appointment and

in fact their names were earlier found in the select list of 2015.

However, no appointments were made and therefore they were

constrained to file the Contempt Petition. He, however, submitted

that the reasons for not accepting the unconditional apology

tendered by the appellants herein by the High Court may be

considered and appropriate orders may be made in the Contempt

Petition. He further submitted that the appellants may be directed

to consider the case of the respondents herein for appointment in

the appellants’ company.

13. On perusal of the judgment dated 17.12.2021, it does not

emerge that it barred the appellants from issuing a fresh

notification so as to complete the process of recruitment. The said

judgment only directed that the process of recruitment be completed

within a period of two months and appointment orders be issued to

the successful candidates. Whether the recruitment was to be

concluded in pursuance of the notification of 2017, or by way of

issuing a fresh notification, was not specified in the said

judgment and therefore, in our view, this aspect of the matter was

left to the discretion of the appellants. In the absence of a

specific direction to the effect that the recruitment be concluded

in pursuance of the notification of 2017 alone, we are unable to

hold that issuance of a fresh recruitment notification would

7 constitute contempt of court. The timeline for completion of

recruitment was stipulated by the court, while the manner in which

the recruitment was to be completed, was the prerogative of the

appellants.

We also take note of the contention of the Learned Solicitor

General that only provisional appointment orders could be issued in

view of the fact that the contempt petition initiated by the

respondents, was pending.

14. Having heard the learned Solicitor General for the appellants

and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents

in light of what we have extracted above and in the light of the

order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the High Court, we find that there

has been no “deliberate and willful” disobedience of the orders of

the High Court. In fact, the appellants herein had also tendered an

unconditional apology on the premise of an alleged violation of the

order of the High Court dated 17.12.2021. Even if the High Court

came to a conclusion that there was a deliberate and willful

disobedience of the order of the court, it could have considered

the said unconditional apology tendered by appellants and concluded

the matter. However, we find that the High Court has, instead of

considering the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants

herein, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment and pay fine.

We do not think that the said punishment imposed was correct having

regard to the facts of the case and the order passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court on 17.12.2021.

8

15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find it

appropriate to accept the unconditional apology of the appellants

herein and consequently set aside the sentence imposed on them. The

Civil Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.........................J. ( B.V. NAGARATHNA )

.........................J. ( PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ) NEW DELHI;

JULY 04, 2023.

9