Court Cannot Look Beyond Extent Of Order Which Has Allegedly Been Flouted In Contempt Proceedings: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that Courts cannot go beyond the four corners of an order while testing allegations of its disobedience in contempt proceedings.A division bench of Justices Shahzad Azeem and Sindhu Sharma ruled that “no order or direction, supplemental to what has been already expressed, should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the Contempt law.”“Court must not travel beyond the four-corners of the Order which is alleged to have been flouted and further held that only such directions which are explicit in a Judgment or Order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same”, they added. The ruling came in a Letters Patent Appeal where 76-year-old Syed Muzaffar Hussain, a retired Depot Manager of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC), challenged the Single Judge's order of May 18, 2023. The Single Judge had rejected his plea for retrospective promotion but directed the release of his Contributory Provident Fund dues.During his service, Hussain was found guilty of embezzling Corporation funds. On his mercy appeal, the SRTC agreed, purely on humanitarian grounds, to treat his suspension period as duty so that his pensionary benefits would not be affected. This settlement, to which both sides consented, was recorded in an order of May 5, 2008.When the Corporation delayed compliance, Hussain initiated contempt proceedings. In 2010, while disposing of one such contempt petition, the Court observed that the expression “consequential benefits” was not limited to pay and leave but could include other service benefits. Relying on this remark, Hussain later claimed he was entitled to promotions at par with his colleagues.Senior Advocate Z. A. Qurashi, assisted by Advocate Anurag Verma, argued for the appellant that the Single Judge had narrowed down the meaning of “consequential benefits” contrary to what the contempt order of 2010 had clarified. He contended that once the sealed cover procedure had been adopted in Hussain's case, the right to consideration for promotion stood protected.On the other hand, Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, assisted by Advocate Asif Wani, appearing for the Corporation, submitted that the 2008 order was restricted to retiral benefits flowing from the committee's recommendations. Since the appellant had been found guilty of embezzlement, the Corporation had shown leniency only to allow him pensionary relief, not career advancement. Adjudicating on the matter the Division Bench held that the appellant's claim was misconceived. The court clarified that the phrase “consequential benefits” in the 2008 order could not be read in isolation but had to be understood in the context of the committee's recommendations. It observed, “Once the basic Order dated May 05, 2008 was very much restrictive in its nature to mean the only benefits which flow from the recommendations of the Committee, then in the contempt proceedings the Court, in our opinion, exceeded the jurisdiction by widening its scope and interpreting the words 'consequential benefits', despite having no ambiguity.”In support of this principle, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekeran (AIR 2014 SC 950), which had cautioned that “Courts must not… travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted.. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account… No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law.”Applying this precedent, the Division Bench held that the contempt orders of 2010 and 2015 had impermissibly widened the scope of the original 2008 order, and Hussain could not take advantage of such an erroneous interpretation. The Court observed that the appellant had been “consistently attempting to approbate and reprobate by both relying on the Order dated May 05, 2008… to escape the consequences of proved misconduct and, thereafter, making attempts to get all the benefits, by taking benefit of erroneous interpretation of the basic Order.”Concluding that the Single Judge's ruling was well-reasoned and based on sound legal principles, the Division Bench thus dismissed Hussain's appeal, reiterating that he was entitled only to post-retiral monetary benefits and not to promotion or any other service benefits.Case Title: Syed Muzaffar Hussain Vs J&K State Road Transport Corporation Mr Z. A. Qurashi, Senior Advocate with Mr Anurag Verma, Advocate. For Petitioner Mr Altaf Haqani, Senior Advocate with Mr Asif Wani, Advocate for R-1 & 2; andMs Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel for R-3.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Court Cannot Look Beyond Extent Of Order Which Has Allegedly Been Flouted In Contempt Proceedings: J&K&L High Court

Aleem Syeed

Tags