JUDGMENT
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner filed this contempt case alleging that the respondents have flouted the orders of this Court dated 25-7-2001 in WP No. 5844 of 2001, and prayed that the contemnors be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. The Court, by the said order dated 25-7-2001 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to implement the order dated 13-9-2001, passed by the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal in R.P No. 2313 of 1987 at an early date and not later than
six weeks from the date of communication of the order and to pay the writ petitioner all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom including fixation of pension and payment of arrears.
3. It is not denied before us that the first respondent herein by order dated 16-11-2001 has passed orders pursuant to the orders of this Court. Consequent thereto, the second respondent has also passed orders on 17-11-2001 notionally fixing the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 18-12-1961 and as Executive Engineer with effect from 6-5-1981.
4. During the course of elaborate submissions, the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person has contended that the two orders dated 16-11-2001 and 17-11-2001 passed by the first and second respondents respectively do not amount to compliance with the orders passed by this Court dated 25-7-2001 and, therefore, they have committed contempt of Court.
5. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the party-in-person.
6. The petitioner had earlier filed a contempt case before the learned Tribunal against the first and second respondents. The learned Tribunal converted the same into an original application OA No. 3371 of 1992, and by an order dated 10-4-2000 disposed of the same directing that the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer based on the seniority given to the petitioner in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer be reconsidered as was done in the case of persons covered by the orders of the Tribunal in R.P. No. 2313 of 1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 5844 of 2001 to set aside the said order and direct the respondents to fully implement the judgment of the learned Tribunal in RP No. 2313 of
1987, dated 13-9-1989, and also further directing the respondents to ignore the alleged fake charges/punishments which were imposed against the petitioner. This Court by judgment dated 25-7-2001 issued directions as noticed hereinbefore. At this stage, we may notice the directions issued in RP No. 2313 of 1997 and batch, dated 13-9-1989, passed by the Full Bench of the learned Tribunal.
7. R.P. No. 2313 of 1997 was filed claiming various reliefs including a direction to promote the petitioner as Executive Engineer with effect from 1-4-1964 as Superintending Engineer with effect from 1-8-1976 and to the post of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief with effect from the date of promotion of one. V. Subbaramaiah. The Full Bench of the learned Tribunal by an elaborate judgment dated 13-9-1989 disposed of the R.P. with certain directions. These directions are – (i) to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer after examining his case for re-determining his date of promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer and refixing his seniority in that category, and (ii) to review me promotion of the petitioner as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer, if the petitioner’s claim for Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from November, 1955 is accepted.
8. The learned Tribunal made it very clear that posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers being selection posts, the promotion of the petitioner to those posts depends not much on his seniority, but on the evaluation of his relative merit and ability and inclusion in panels.
9. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in this contempt case. It is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court, a Screening Committee has authorized to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the category of Deputy Executive Engineer which inter alia recommended promotion
of the petitioner as under:
1. As Deputy Executive Engineer 1-11-1956 2. As Executive Engineer 12-5-1964 3. As Superintending Engineer 4-4-1979 4. As Chief Engineer 12-7-1984
10. In accordance with the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the Government issued Memo No. l4298/Ser.II.l/2001-7, dated 16-11-2001 informing that the question of change in the revision of seniority in subsequent categories i.e., Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-chief (AW), Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad, does not arise. Consequential order also was issued by the second respondent notionally refixing the pay of the petitioner.
11. The party-in-person, however, submits that as per the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 13-9-1989 his seniority in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer has to be reckoned from November, 1955 and in which event, he would be entitled for promotion.
12. After going through the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as this Court, we are unable to agree with the part-in-person. A reading of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 13-9-1989 does not lend any support to the contention raised before us. Further, the respondents have passed necessary orders as directed by this Court. Whether the orders were passed in accordance with the directions of the learned Tribunal in their order dated 13-9-1989 or not is not the subject-matter before us. Prima-facie, we are convinced that the respondents have complied with the directions of this Court dated 25-7-2001.
13. In a recent decision in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2000) 7 SCC 530, the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar case. In the said case, the Supreme Court in
its earlier decision in Chhotu Ram v. State of Haryana, , directed the respondent therein to consider the case of Chhotu Ram for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer in Haryana Service of Engineers Class II, on the basis that he was qualified by the cut off dated 1-1-1980. The Supreme Court also directed to give all consequential benefits, if he was considered fit for promotion as in September, 1980. The case of the petitioner therein was considered, and by order dated 20-11-2000, the Government rejected the case of Chhotu Ram on the ground that his name did not find a place for promotion in the list as sub-Divisional Officer, and his claim does not hold good. Before the Supreme Court, two questions were raised. The first question was as to the burden of standard of proof required. It was held that “it would be too hazardous to sentence in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities”, and further ruled that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act being quasi-criminal, the breach alleged, has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is apposite to excerpt the following:
As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the “standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt
14. The second question was whether the contemnors therein committed contempt inspite of the fact that the case of Chhotu Ram was considered and rejected. Answering the querry in the negative, the Supreme Court observed:
…..This Court by reason of the order dated 8-10-1999 did not issue a mandate but
issued a direction for consideration only. In the event, however, the matter being not considered or in the event consideration was effected in a manner to whittle down the claim of the petitioner, initiation of the proceedings cannot but be said to be justified. But in the event, however, contextual facts depict that the consideration was effected in accordance with the normal rules, practice and procedure and upon such consideration, no promotion could be offered to the petitioner, question of there being any act of contempt would not arise……
15. The petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of breach of the order of this Court beyond reasonable doubt. Further, admittedly, the respondents have passed necessary orders, and therefore, the question of the respondent committing any contempt of this Court, does not arise.
16. In the result, the contempt case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the respondents before the appropriate forum, in which event, the learned Tribunal may decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by us herein.