Supreme Court | Delay in Compliance of Order Does Not Constitute Wilful Contempt | Pension Claim Rejected as Beyond Scope of Original Relief | Compensation Directed to Legal Heirs
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih disposed of contempt petitions alleging delayed compliance with this Court’s order dated 17 January 2018 directing payment of outstanding dues. The Court recorded that although the respondent-bank did not pay within three months, the amounts were later disbursed; it held that the material did not establish wilful or contumacious disobedience. The Court rejected the claim for pensionary benefits on the ground that such relief did not form part of the prior directions. To bring a quietus, it directed payment of ₹3,00,000 to the petitioner’s widow within eight weeks, failing which interest at 8% would accrue, and clarified that upon compliance no further proceedings would be entertained
The proceedings originated from the employment termination of A.K. Jayaprakash, who had been serving as Manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd. He was dismissed in 1985 on allegations of irregularities concerning sanctioning of loans, overdrafts, cheque discounting, and delayed reporting. The dismissal was contested before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The authority set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement.
The bank challenged this decision before the Madras High Court, contending that the Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction owing to limitation. The High Court remanded the matter with a directive to first adjudicate the question of delay. On remand, the Deputy Commissioner condoned the delay based on medical evidence submitted and reaffirmed reinstatement. It was recorded that the allegations were unsupported by evidence of mala fides or dishonesty, no loss was occasioned to the bank, and the business had improved under Jayaprakash’s tenure.
The bank again approached the High Court, which upheld the reinstatement but restricted back wages to 60 per cent. The Division Bench dismissed the bank’s appeal. Meanwhile, Nedungadi Bank merged with Punjab National Bank, which pursued further appeals before the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009.
On 17 January 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision, and expressly directed that “the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months.” Despite this mandate, compliance was not effected within time. The petitioner submitted multiple representations seeking back wages, pension, pensionary benefits, and provident fund amounts. The bank rejected the claim for pension and did not release other dues promptly.
Subsequently, the petitioner initiated contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience. The record showed that payments were eventually made as follows: arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 16,11,330.52 in March 2019; gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000 in March 2019; provident fund dues of Rs. 2,16,438.34 in May 2019; and further provident fund dues of Rs. 1,82,633.70 in June 2023.
During pendency of the contempt proceedings, the petitioner expired, and his legal representatives were substituted on record pursuant to an order dated 14 August 2023.
The petitioners contended that non-payment within the stipulated three months constituted deliberate defiance of the Supreme Court’s order and that denial of pension further aggravated contempt. The respondents argued that all dues as directed had been paid, though belatedly, citing administrative hurdles following the merger of Nedungadi Bank with Punjab National Bank and difficulty in retrieving legacy records. They maintained that pension was never directed or adjudicated upon and therefore could not be claimed in contempt proceedings.
Justice Augustine George Masih observed: “At the outset, we find that there is no dispute regarding the operative portion of the order dated 17.01.2018. The direction reads: ‘...the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months.’”
The Court noted further: “There is equally no dispute that the amount was not paid within the period of three months. In fact, letters annexed to the contempt petitions show that the payments commenced in 2019, well beyond the timeline fixed by this Court.”
On the key question, the Bench recorded: “The question that arises for consideration is whether the delayed compliance constitutes wilful disobedience so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
Citing precedent, the Court stated: “In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others, this Court has held that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the majesty of law and not to settle personal grievances. Similarly, in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another, in a case of civil contempt, the breach must be deliberate and intentional.”
Applying these principles, the Court recorded: “Although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court, the material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.”
Regarding pension, the Court observed: “It is evident that no such relief was ever sought in the Civil Appeal Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009 or any other earlier proceedings or submissions moved by the Petitioner, nor was there any adjudication to the said effect by the courts below. Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others, this Court held that contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms. Accordingly, the prayer for pension cannot be entertained at this stage.”
On the prolonged litigation, the Court recorded: “It cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner, who was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006. Notwithstanding the final adjudication by this Court in 2018, the retirement dues lawfully accruing to him but remained undisbursed for over a decade. The prolonged non-disbursal of funds, despite successive directions at various stages of the litigation, and the fact that litigation has remained pending since the 1980s, we are of the considered view that a reasonable lump sum payment is warranted, both in acknowledgement/recognition of the protracted delay in disbursal of the dues and to bring a quietus to future litigation by granting compensation.”
The Court issued clear directives in disposing of the contempt petitions. It held that the prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings was disposed of and the rule issued stood discharged against the respondents. The Court explicitly rejected the claim for pensionary benefits on the ground that such relief had not formed part of the original directions in the civil appeals and had never been adjudicated by any forum.
In recognition of the prolonged delay in settlement of lawful dues, the Court directed: “The respondent-Bank shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to Smt. Vimala Prakash, the widow of the deceased Petitioner and in her absence to the other legal representatives on record within a period of eight weeks from today failing which interest at the rate of 8% will be payable till the date of disbursement.”
It was further directed that upon compliance of this payment, no further proceedings shall be entertained in relation to the subject matter of the contempt petitions. The Court accordingly disposed of all pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR; Mrs. Nilita Jaju, Adv.; Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.; Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR; Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv.; Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv.; Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv.
Case Title: A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1003
Case Number: Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1002–1003 of 2023 in C.A. Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
