Patna High Court
Bihar, through Mr. Amrit Lal Mina, Chief Secretary,versusMr. Anil Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The direction granting promotional benefits was not sustainable and was set aside.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a Miscellaneous Jurisdiction order that had directed the promotion of a government employee, Anil Kumar, and payment of arrears salary based on a recommendation of the DPC, even though the original writ petition under Article 226 did not seek such promotional relief. The High Court examined whether a contempt proceeding could expand the scope of the original order and held that contempt jurisdiction is confined to the specific directions given in the judgment. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that courts cannot issue supplementary directions or reinterpret orders beyond their four corners. Since the writ petition contained no prayer for promotion, the direction granting promotional benefits was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the paragraph granting promotion and disposed of the appeal.
Issues considered
- The scope of contempt jurisdiction and whether it can be used to enforce relief not expressly prayed for in the original writ petition.
- Whether a court can issue supplementary directions, such as promotion and arrears salary, beyond the specific relief sought in the writ petition.
- Whether the appellate court can uphold the lower court’s order granting promotional benefits absent a prayer for such relief.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- contempt jurisdiction
- Article 226
- writ petition
- promotion benefits
- court's four corners doctrine
- judicial overreach
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.607 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3368 of 2024
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar, through Mr. Amrit Lal Mina, Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Md. Sohail, Additional Departmental Inquiry Commissioner cum Enquiry
Officer, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Mr. Anil Kumar Son of Late Ishwer Sharan Lall, Resident of Village- 54A,
Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District- Patna.
2. Mr. Raj Kumar, The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, S.C.-11
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in M.J.C. No. 3368 of 2024.
The operative portion of the order passed in M.J.C. reads as
follows:-
"10. In view of Jankiraman (supra), the
Appointing Authority of the petitioner is under
obligation to open the sealed cover and on the
basis of the recommendation of the DPC, the
petitioner shall be promoted notionally from the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.607 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/6
date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner is
also entitled to get arrears salary in promotional
scale from the date of notional promotion. The
opposite parties are specifically directed to comply
with the above order within a period of four weeks
from the date."
2. This M.J.C. No. 3368 of 2024 arose out of C.W.J.C.
No. 6902 of 2022 against the order dated 30.04.2025. The
opposite party, Anil Kumar approached this Court with the
following relief:-
"The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for
issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent for payment of leave
encashment and gratuity of the petitioner by way of
his retrial dues with interest on and from
31.01.2014, the date of superannuation of the
petitioner and for an appropriate
direction/order/orders/command/commands as may
be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and also for any other
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may found
entitled."
3. The scope of contempt proceeding is strictly
confined to the four corners of an order or specific prayers made
Patna High Court L.P.A No.607 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/6
in the underlying writ petition, meaning a Court cannot expand
the scope of original order or grant new relief testing allegations
of disobedience. Contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for
execution proceeding, It cannot be used to direct compliance
with things not explicitly ordered. Contempt can only be
established if there is a willful and deliberate violation of the
specific directions in the judgment/orders. If specific relief was
not asked for in the writ petition, the contempt Court cannot
later include it in its enforcement orders. Thus, while exercising
contempt power, the Court should not issue supplementary
directions. If the original order is vague, the proper remedy is to
seek clarification from the Court that passed the original order,
rather than to expand its scope through contempt proceedings.
4. In the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. v.
Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 352, it
is held as follows:-
"...11. It is to be kept in mind that the
court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for
contempt does not function as an original or
appellate court for determination of the disputes
between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction
should be confined to the question whether there
has been any deliberate disobedience of the order
of the court and if the conduct of the party who is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.607 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/6
alleged to have committed such disobedience is
contumacious. The court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions
which have not been dealt with and decided in the
judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by
the applicant. The court has to consider the
direction issued in the judgment or order and not
to consider the question as to what the judgment or
order should have contained...".
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, in the case of
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M. George
Ravishekaran & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373, that:
"...19. The Courts must not, therefore,
travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions
that have not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is alleged.
Only such directions which are explicit in a
judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of
consideration as to whether there has been any
disobedience or wilful violation of the same.
Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the
plea of equities be considered. No order or
direction supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while
Patna High Court L.P.A No.607 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
5/6
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the
contempt law...".
6. In the case of V. Senthur & Anr. v. M.
Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission & Anr., reported in (2022) 17 SCC 568, it is held
as follows:-
"15. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the
court will not travel beyond the original judgment
and direction; neither would it be permissible for
the court to issue any supplementary or incidental
directions, which are not to be found in the original
judgment and order. The court is only concerned
with the wilful or deliberate non-compliance of the
directions issued in the original judgment and
order."
7. It is not in dispute that there was never any prayer
in the writ petition seeking the grant of promotional benefits.
Even though in the operative part of the order, the words not
only pensionary benefits but also all consequential benefits have
been used, but when there was no prayer in the writ petition for
any promotional relief or promotional aspect, it cannot be said
that the learned Single Judge directed the grant of promotional
benefits to the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the view that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.607 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
6/6
the direction passed in paragraph 10, as stated above, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. It is open
to the opposite party to seek appropriate remedy in accordance
with law.
9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the appeal stands
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…