JUDGMENT
1. This is a contempt petition filed by Dr. R. A. Darbari on the allegation that the judgment given in his favor in the Writ Petition No. 187/75 is not being complied with by the respondents.
2. The services of the petitioner had been terminated and he had filed a writ which was allowed and the order terminating his services was quashed and the respondents were directed to re-instate him with all necessary benefits. The short question which has arisen in this contempt petition is whether the respondents while granting the petitioner all the arrears of pay and allowance were entitled to deny to the petitioner non-practicing allowance. Another point raised by the petitioner is that he had not been given promotion although his junior has been promoted and that the respondents are bound to give him promotion from the date his junior had been promoted.
3. The case of the respondents in brief is that there is no legal right available to the petitioner entitling him to grant of ad hoc promotion and as far as regular promotion was concerned his case was duly considered and the findings of the D.P.C. were kept in a sealed cover as at that time the petitioner was under suspension and later on after the decision of the writ petition the said sealed cover was opened and it was found that the petitioner was not found suitable for giving any promotion.
4. Coming to the first point, the non-practicing allowance is a part of special pay in accordance with Rule 9.25 of the Fundamental Rules and the moment the writ was allowed and the petitioner was re-instated, he was entitled to have all his pay and allowances. The counsel for the respondents had argued that the non-practicing allowance could be granted only if the petitioner had not practiced professionally during the period he remained out of service. There is no rule referred to by the counsel for the respondents which could support such a proposition. If this allowance is treated as special pay then the same has to be paid to the petitioner in view of F.R. 54(a)(3) and (5). It is only the amount which the petitioner might have earned professionally during the relevant time which could be deducted from the arrears of the pay and allowances to which the petitioner is entitled. Under F.R. 54 referred to above it is quite evident that the respondents were not justified in denying the release of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner when the same is considered as special pay in view of the definition given in F.R. 9.25. However, counsel for the respondents had argued that such a relief cannot be given to the petitioner in this contempt petition. There is no merit in this contention because non-obedience of the order of the Court like the writ petition amounts to civil contempt and a civil contempt petition can always be deemed to be a petition for enforcing order of the court already made. In The State v. Dasrath Jha, , it was observed that there was a fundamental distinction between contempts that are criminal and those that are civil. The former consists in a conduct that offends the majesty of Law and undermines the dignity of the Court. A civil contempt, on the other hand, is a failure to obey a Court’s order issued for the benefit of the opposing party, and the principal object of a civil contempt is to secure the enforcement of the order. In Dulal Chandra Bhar and others v. Sukumar Banerjee and others , the same principle was laid down. So also in State v. Adilakshmi Amma and others . It is true that it is not a fit case for imposing penalties on the respondents for the failure to give the arrears of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner as they were advised by their Legal Department that perhaps the same is not to be allowed as the petitioner had admittedly been practicing privately and had earned income. But all the same, in view of the interpretation given by me above, it is quite clear that the respondents are bound to pay the arrears of non-practicing allowance to the petitioner after deducting the amount earned by the petitioner in his private practice for the relevant time as determined by the Income Tax Officer on the returns filed by the petitioner for the relevant period.
5. The petitioner, however, has no right to have regular promotion because his case was duly considered at the relevant time and he was not found fit for promotion. There is no legal right available to the petitioner to secure any ad hoc promotion. So he is not entitled to have any such benefit. I, hence, direct the respondents to pay the non-practicing allowance to the petitioner in the above terms, within two months from today with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today till the payment is made.
6. The petition is disposed of in the terms discussed above.