Safiya Malik

The Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench addressed a contempt appeal involving interim orders issued by a Single Judge in a civil contempt case. The matter concerned allegations of non-compliance with a court directive on salary parity for Laboratory Technicians (Malaria) employed in Haryana. The Division Bench quashed the interim orders, including a direction to impose ₹50,000 in personal costs on a senior official, citing procedural lapses in the contempt proceedings and emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal principles.

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Laboratory Technicians appointed through direct recruitment. The petitioners sought salary parity with their promoted counterparts, claiming entitlement to equal pay under service regulations and judicial precedents. They relied on the decision in Rajesh Kumar & Others v. State of Haryana, which had addressed similar concerns. The precedent, affirmed by a Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court, formed the foundation for their claims.

On February 5, 2024, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations within a specified timeframe. The court further stated, “If any amount is found due and payable to the petitioners, the same shall be disbursed within three months.” The directive did not address the merits of the petitioners' claims but required the competent authority to act on the representations in a time-bound manner.

Subsequently, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings (COCP No. 2811 of 2024) against a senior official, alleging non-compliance with the court’s directive. During the proceedings, the Single Judge issued an interim order on August 21, 2024, imposing ₹50,000 in personal costs on the official and directing their appearance at subsequent hearings. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that procedural safeguards were not followed.

In the appeal, the appellant submitted that the competent authority had issued a speaking order on August 22, 2024, rejecting the petitioners’ claims. The appellant contended that the delay in compliance was due to the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court on November 13, 2024, challenging the foundational judgment in Rajesh Kumar & Others v. State of Haryana. It was also argued that the contempt proceedings failed to account for this pending legal challenge.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, examined the procedural aspects of the case. It recorded that contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary and punitive in nature and must be exercised judiciously and in compliance with procedural norms. The court stated, “Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised within the boundaries of procedural and substantive legal principles.”

The Bench noted that the Single Judge had issued punitive directives, including personal costs and the requirement for personal appearances, without framing specific charges or providing the appellant an opportunity to present a defense. The court observed, “The absence of adherence to procedural safeguards renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.”

The Division Bench stated that contempt proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for execution mechanisms, observing that such proceedings should only enforce explicit directions within a judgment. It stated, “Contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for execution proceedings and cannot grant reliefs not explicitly provided in the underlying judgment.” The court further observed that the pendency of the SLP challenging the precedent cited by the petitioners warranted judicial caution. It recorded, “The pendency of the SLP was a material consideration warranting deferment of punitive measures.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006), the Division Bench reiterated that contempt proceedings are limited to addressing clear and willful disobedience of judicial directives. It stated, “Reliefs not expressly granted in the judgment cannot form the basis of contempt jurisdiction.”

The Bench expressed concern about procedural irregularities, noting that repeated issuance of such orders undermines judicial propriety. The court stated, “Strict adherence to procedural safeguards is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.”

The Division Bench quashed the interim order dated August 21, 2024, and set aside the imposition of ₹50,000 in costs on the appellant. It also declared subsequent orders in the contempt case, including one dated November 26, 2024, as having no legal effect. The court directed that its judgment be communicated to the concerned Contempt Bench to ensure compliance with procedural principles in future cases.

The court clarified that charges in contempt proceedings must be explicitly framed, and alleged contemnors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Bench recorded, “Punitive measures in contempt jurisdiction should be applied judiciously, respecting procedural safeguards and ensuring fairness in adjudication.”

The Division Bench concluded by stating that contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised cautiously and is intended only for instances of clear and willful non-compliance with judicial directives. It stated, “Contempt jurisdiction must uphold the authority of judicial directives while ensuring fairness and procedural compliance.”

Case Title: Dr. Manish Bansal v. Subhash Chander Malik & Others
Case Number: CACP No. 28 of 2024 in COCP No. 2811 of 2024 in CWP No. 15149 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Sudeepti Sharma

[Read/Download order]