Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, has held that courts cannot go beyond the four corners of an order when testing allegations of its breach in contempt proceedings. The decision arose from a Letters Patent Appeal by Syed Muzaffar Hussain, a retired Depot Manager of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation, who sought promotions under the expression “consequential benefits” mentioned in earlier writ orders. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench held that contempt jurisdiction is limited to enforcing what is expressly directed and cannot be used to expand relief. It confined “consequential benefits” to post-retiral monetary entitlements, thereby rejecting the claim for promotional advancement.

The appellant had retired as Depot Manager of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation on 30 April 2004. During service, an embezzlement of ₹5,33,624 was established against him. While the misconduct was proved in departmental proceedings, the Corporation, upon a mercy appeal, decided on humanitarian grounds to treat the suspension period as duty. This arrangement was limited to securing pensionary and other post-retiral monetary benefits, and did not extend to any claim of promotion

Also Read: Supreme Court | Death Penalty in 2014 Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside | Accused Acquitted as Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

This arrangement was formally recorded in SWP No. 1141/2006, disposed of on 5 May 2008, where both parties accepted a committee’s recommendations that allowed adjustment of suspension period for pension fixation but did not extend to promotional avenues. The committee’s findings confirmed the embezzlement, noted voluntary deposit of part of the misappropriated amount by the appellant, and recommended regulation of suspension periods solely to avoid adverse impact on pension.

Subsequent to alleged non-compliance, the appellant pursued contempt proceedings. Orders passed in Contempt Petition No. 302/2008 on 28 May 2010 observed that “consequential benefits are not confined to pay and leave but extend to other benefits flowing from settlement of the case.” This expanded interpretation encouraged the appellant to press for promotions equivalent to those granted to one Mohammad Altaf Kawoosa, seeking parity to the post of Traffic Manager and thereafter Deputy Manager.

The Corporation resisted, contending that the settlement never contemplated promotions, particularly in light of proven embezzlement. It reiterated that the appellant’s claim was restricted to retiral benefits. A subsequent order dated 14 October 2015 reiterated rejection of promotion claims. The appellant again litigated by way of SWP No. 886/2016, in which the Single Judge, on 18 May 2023, dismissed his promotion claim but directed release of CPF dues. The present Letters Patent Appeal sought reversal of that judgment.

Justice Shahzad Azeem, delivering the judgment for the Division Bench, analysed whether the words “consequential benefits” in the order of 5 May 2008 could legitimately include promotions. The Court recorded: “The controversy boils down to the point, as to whether the basic Order dated May 05, 2008 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 1141/2006 can be stretched to the extent that words ‘consequential benefits’ used therein to mean accord of promotion also.”

The Bench examined the reliefs sought in the 2006 writ petition and noted: “From the perusal of the relief sought… one would find that the Appellant has restricted his relief to the settlement of the period of suspension and specifically prayed for grant of consequential benefits in the matter of gratuity and pension after counting said period towards petitioner’s service.”

Referring to the committee report that formed the basis of the 2008 order, the Court stated: “It has been specifically and unequivocally stated that the Appellant has embezzled the Corporation revenue to the tune of Rs. 5,33,624/- and he did not question this fact during enquiry or thereafter, but pleaded mercy. The report further proceeds… it is only on humanitarian ground, the suspension period was treated on duty, otherwise same would have affected the Appellant’s pension.”

On the expanded interpretation given during contempt proceedings, the Court observed: “Once the basic Order dated May 05, 2008 was very much restrictive in its nature… 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.”

Also Read: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court | Tribunal Misapplied Rule 64 of PSC Rules | Order on Principal Appointments in Degree Colleges Quashed

Citing the Supreme Court decision in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekeran (AIR 2014 SC 950), the Bench recorded: “Courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted… Decided issues cannot be reopened, nor the plea of equities can be considered. 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.”

The Court held: “For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error of fact or law committed by the Writ Court, accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merit, is dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Z. A. Qurashi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Altaf Haqani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate, Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel

Case Title: Syed Muzaffar Hussain v. J&K State Road Transport Corporation & Ors
Case Number: LPA No. 156/2023 in SWP No. 886/2016
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem