AMIT SINGH Vs. BHUPENDRA KAUR ALULAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It could be one of the examples of a malicious intent of the State counsel, to defend the contemnor, where an endeavour has been made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State to brutally assassinate the valuable time of the Court. The writ Court in the writ petition, which was preferred by the petitioner had by an order dtd. 8/11/2017, directed the respondent to consider the aspect of remittance of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner based upon the criteria as it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement rendered in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others [ (2017) 1 SCC 148]. Meaning thereby, the consideration which was directed to be made by the respondent was strictly in adherence to the principles and norms as laid down by the judgement of Jagjit Singh's case (supra).

(2.) On its non-compliance, the contempt was filed by the petitioner on 15/12/2019, the reference of the said date of filing of contempt is being deliberately made in the order in order to answer the question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, in relation to the embargo of Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. On the said contempt petition, the notices were issued on 3/1/2020 to the respondents, and in compliance thereto, the steps was taken on 8/1/2020, and the respondents have filed their compliance affidavit on 14/2/2020, wherein since there was a non-compliance of the judgement dtd. 8/11/2017, a direction was further issued on 4/2/2020, for the Executive Engineer to appear before this Court in order to show cause as to why the order has not been strictly complied with as directed. The Executive Engineer had placed on record an affidavit of compliance dtd. 12/2/2020, wherein he has annexed an order dtd. 23/1/2020, contending thereof that the direction as issued by the writ Court by the interim order dtd. 8/11/2017 has been complied with.

(3.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court during course of arguments was called upon to answer few arguments, which have been extended by the learned Counsel for the State, while defending the contemnor with regards to the tenability of the contempt itself. He submits that at the first instance that the contempt proceedings would be barred by Sec. 20 of the Act, because the compliance has been sought for of an interim order has been passed in 2017.