NOOR SABAversusANOOP MISHRA & ANR.

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 679


                    NOOR SABA                                      A
                          v.
               ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.
          CONTEMPT PETITION N0.3 OF 2012
                         IN
        CONTEMPT PETITION N0.6 & 7 OF 2009                         B
                         IN
         WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 503 of 2007
                   SEPTEMBER 2, 2013.
  [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI                       C
             AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

    Contempt of court:

     Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of Court's          0
order - Held: The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is
summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the
alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is
normally made on admitted and undisputed facts - In the
instant case, the respondents have filed affidavits stating that   E
the order of the Court has been complied with and the revised
family pension as due to the petitioner is being regularly paid
to her and arrears have also been deposited in her bank
account - Further, the dispute raised by the petitioner with
regard to the last pay drawn by her husband is a disputed
question of fact - Accordingly, the Court holds that no case       F
for omission of any contempt of its order is made out.

     The petitioner's husband passed away on 5.4.1980
while he was holding the post of Headmaster in the
Government Public School. With regard to her claim for             G
revised family pension, she ultimately filed Writ Petition
(C) No. 50312007, which was disposed of by the Supreme
Court, on 29.7.2008 with a direction that the family
pension of the petitioner should be determined in terms
                           679                                     H
    680      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A of Government Order dated 24.2.1989 and other orders
  issued from time to time revising the family pension. The
  petitioner subsequently filed Contempt Petitions (C) Nos.
  6 and 7 of 2009 alleging that the directions issued by the
  Court on 29.7.2008 were not implemented and certain
B forged and fabricated documents were placed by the
  official respondents before the Court. The Court by order
  dated 1.9.2010 directed the Accountant General, U.P. to
  consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the order
  passed by the Court on 29.7.2008 and determine the
c amount payable to her and report to the Court. The
  petitioner filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2012
  alleging that the directions dated 1.9.2010 were also not
  complied with.

       Since the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Contempt
D Petitions Nos. 6 and 7 of 2009 was the subject matter of
  Contempt Petition No. 3/2012, the Court closed Contempt
  Petitions Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009.

          Dismissing the contempt petition, the Court
E
      HELD: 1.1. To hold the respondents or anyone of
  them liable, a conclusion has to be arrived at that they
  have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The
  exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature
  and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged
F contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally
  made on admitted and undisputed facts. [para 12] [687-
  B-C]

       1.2. In the instant case, respondent No. 1, namely, the
G Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed an
  affidavit stating that revised pension at the rate of Rs.
  3058/- per month is being paid to the petitioner on a
  regular basis; that the amount of pension has been
  calculated on the basis of Rs. 620/- as the last pay drawn
H by the petitioner's husband and that the difference in
         NOOR SABA v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.              681


pension and the arrears accruing on account of revision       A
of pension following the 6th Pay Commission Report has
also been deposited in her bank account. Respondent
No. 2 namely, the Accountant General, U.P. has also filed
an affidavit categorically stating that the order dated
1.9.2010 passed by this Court has been complied with by       B
him, and there is no apparent error in the calculation with
regard to the pensionary entitlements of the petitioner.
The dispute raised by the petitioner at this stage with
regard to the last pay drawn by her husband is a disputed
question of fact. Thus, not only there has been a shift in    c
the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts
on which commission of contempt has been alleged,
even the said new/altered facts do not permit an
adjudication in consonance with the established
principles of exercise of contempt jurisdiction so as to      0
enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the
respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this
Court dated 1.9.2010. This Court, accordingly, holds that
no case of commission of any contempt of this Court's
order dated 1.9.2010 is made out. [Para 8, 9, 11 and 12]
                                                              E
[685-C-E, F-G; 686-H; 687-A, C-E]

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No.3
of 2012
                                IN
                                                              F

    .,
    Contempt Petition No. 6 & 7 of 2009


    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 503 of 2007

    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India             G
    R.K. Khanna, ASG, Shobha Dixit, Sumeet Sharma,
Prashant Bhushan, M.R. Shamshad, Malvika Trivedi, C.D.
Singh, Sunita Sharma, Seema Rao, D.S. Mahra, Priyanka
Sinha, Sushma Suri for the appearing parties.
                                                              H
    682       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The contempt petitioner had filed
  a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution [W.P.(C) No.
  503 of 2007] raising a plea that after her husband had passed
  away in the year 1980, while serving as the Headmaster in
8
  Government Public School, Rampur under the Uttar Pradesh
  Basic Shiksha Parishad, a meagre and inadequate amount of
  family pension was being paid to her leaving her in a dire state
  of penury and distress. The writ petition in question was filed
C before this Court even while a writ proceeding on the same
  issue was pending before the Allahabad High Court.
  Notwithstanding the above, taking into account the peculiar facts
  of the case, particularly, the distress that the petitioner claimed
  to be suffering from, this Court entertained the writ petition and
  disposed of the same by the order dated 29.7.2008 in the
D following terms :

          "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
          we direct that the family pension of the petitioner shall be
          determined in terms of Government Order dated 24.2.1989
E         and other necessary orders issued from time to time
          revising the family pension. This exercise shall be done
          within a period of three months from today. After the family
          pension is determined in terms of the various Government
          Orders on the subject and the amount of arrears be
F         calculated, the same shall be paid to the petitioner after
          deducting the payments already made to her on account
          of family pension. With the abovesaid direction, the writ
          petition is disposed of. No order as to costs." [Para 12]

       2. While disposing of the writ petition in the above terms
G by order dated 29.7.2008, this Court had recorded certain facts
  which being relevant to the present proceedings are being
  noticed hereinafter.

        The petitioner's husband late Masood Umer Khan was
H initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1959 and
       NOOR SABA v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.                       683
              [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
he was holding the post of Headmaster in the Government               A
Public School, Rampur when he passed away on 5.4.1980. The
petitioner was granted family pension at the rate of Rs. 200/-
per month which was later revised to Rs. 425/-. The revised
amount was reduced to Rs. 375/- per month and an attempt
was made to recover the excess amount allegedly overdrawn             B
by the petitioner. The aforesaid action of the State was
challenged by the petitioner in a writ proceeding before the
Allahabad High Court which was, however, dismissed on
4.3.2005. Aggrieved, an intra-court appeal was filed against the
said order dated 4.3.2005 in which an interim order was               c
passed directing continuance of payment of family pension to
the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month. While the matter
was so situated the writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution [W.P. (C) No. 503/2007] was filed before this Court
which was disposed of in terms of the directions already noticed
                                                                      0
and extracted above.

      3. Alleging that the directions issued by this Court on
29.7.2008 while disposing of W.P. (C) No. 503/2007 had not
been implemented Contempt Petition (C) No. 6/2009 was filed.
Simultaneously, another contempt petition i.e. Contempt               E
Petition(C) No. 7/2009 was instituted contending that in the
proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 503/2007 certain forged and
fabricated documents were placed by the official respondents
before this Court which amounted to an abuse of the process
of the Court for which the respondents in the writ petition are       F
liable in contempt.

     4. In the course of hearing of Contempt Petition (C) Nos.
6 and 7/2009 this Court had passed an order dated 1.9.201 O
to the following effect :
                                                                      G
           "It is grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the
     above order the respondents have not settled the family
     pension as directed. Though learned counsel representing
     the State of U.P. states that the eligible pension has been
     settled and is being paid, in view of the stand taken by the     H
    684      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A         petitioner, we direct the Accountant General, U.P. at
          Allahabad to go into the grievance of the petitioner in
          terms of the order passed by this Court vide para 12 which
          we had extracted and determine the amount payable till
          this date and report to this Court within a period of six
B         weeks.

                List after the report is received."

      5. Contending that the aforesaid directions dated 1.9.2010
  has not been complied with Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of
C 2012 has been instituted by the petitioner.

        6. Two significant facts which would render it wholly
  unnecessary to adjudicate Contempt Petitions No. 6 and 7 of
  2009 may be taken note of at this stage. The first is that by virtue
0 of the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in the aforesaid two
  contempt petitions the issues before the Court have become
  crystallized in a somewhat different manner and the
  adjudication that would be necessary now has changed its
  complexion to one of compliance of the directions contained
E in the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010 by the Accountant
  General of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The second significant
  fact is that no serious issue has been raised on behalf of the
  petitioner with regard to the necessity of any further adjudication
  of Contempt Petitions No. 6/2009 and 7/2009 and the entire
  of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner has
F centred around the issues arising in Contempt Petition No. 3/
  2012. We, therefore, proceed to consider Contempt Petition
  No. 3/2012 and deem it appropriate to close Contempt Petition
  Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 as not requiring any further orders of
  the Court.
G
        7. In Contempt Petition No. 3/2012 the contempt petitioner
  had claimed that the Accountant General, State of Uttar
  Pradesh has not taken any steps to comply with the order/
  directions dated 1.9.2010 of this Court and has not calculated
H the amount of pension payable to the petitioner. The contempt
       NOOR SABA v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.                       685
              [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
petitioner has further alleged that inspite of the repeated           A
reminders the default on the part of the Accountant General,
State of Uttar Pradesh, had persisted. Furthermore, it is the
case of the contempt petitioner that she is an old lady of 72
years of age who has been unjustly deprived of the pension due
to her ever since her husband had passed away on 5.4.1980             B
while he was still in service.

      8. The Respondent No. 1 in the contempt petition, namely,
the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh has
responded to the allegations made in the contempt petition by
filing an affidavit wherein it is stated that the arrears of salary   C
and pension, including revised pension at the rate of Rs. 3058/
- per month, has been and is being paid to the petitioner on a
regular basis. According to the Chief Secretary, the amount of
pension has been calculated on the basis of Rs. 620/- as the
last pay drawn by the petitioner's husband. Furthermore,              D
according to the Chief Secretary, the difference in pension and
the arrears accruing on account of revision of pension following
the 6th Pay Commission Report has also been deposited in
the bank account of the petitioner (No. 2622) in the District
Cooperative Bank, Rajdwara, Rampur. Alongwith his affidavit,          E
the Chief Secretary of the State has also enclosed the
certificate of the last pay drawn by the petitioner's husband
which clearly indicates the same to be Rs. 620/- per month.

     9. The Respondent No. 2 in the contempt petition, namely,        F
the Accountant General of the State of Uttar Pradesh has also
filed an affidavit stating the facts relevant to the case and
asserting that the calculations made by the Office of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur with regard to family pension due
to the petitioner corresponds to the calculation of such pension      G
made by the office of the Accountant General and that there is
no apparent error in the calculation with regard to the
pensionary entitlements of the petitioner.

   10. The order dated 1.9.2010 passed by this Court in
Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 required the                 H
    686       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Accountant General of the State to determine the correct
    amount of family pension payable to the petitioner in
    accordance with the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by this
    Court in W.P.(C) No. 503/2007. It is the categorical stand of
    the Accountant General in the affidavit filed that the said order
B   of this Court has been complied with by him. In this regard the
    specific statement of the Accountant General which is to the
    following effect may be taken note of :

                "However as per the calculations obtained by the
          office of the respondent from the office of the Basic
c         Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur, the amount of the family
          pension mentioned therein is found to be the same as that
          of the amount determined by the office of the respondent
          as per the order of this Hon'ble Court and mentioned in
          the letter report dt. 4.11.2010. Hence there appears to be
D         no difference in calculations of amount by the office of
          Respondent and the dept. of petitioner." (Para 6 of the
          Affidavit dated 16.3.2012)

          11. Following the above stand taken by the Accountant
E   General in his affidavit there has been a significant alteration
    in the stand of the petitioner as evident from the additional
    affidavit/rejoinder affidavit filed by her to the counter affidavit
    of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner now seeks to raise a
    dispute with regard to the last pay drawn by her husband which
F   she contends to be Rs. 1620/- and not Rs. 620/-. On the
    aforesaid basis the claim to a higher amount of pension has
    been made by the petitioner. Though, the petitioner has brought
    on record some material in support of the said claim, i.e.,
    another last pay drawn certificate showing the same as Rs.
    1620/- and some extracts from the service book of her husband,
G   the fact remains that the aforesaid documents relied upon by
    the petitioner stand contradicted by the last pay drawn
    certificate brought on record by the Accountant General in his
    affidavit as also the statements made by the Chief Secretary
    to the effect that the last pay drawn by the petitioner's husband
H                                                                   I
       NOOR SABA v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.                         687
              [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
was Rs. 620/- per month. Disputed questions of fact therefore           A
confront this Court.

     12. To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for
contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the
respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The
                                                                        B
exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an
adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful
disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and
undisputed facts. In the present case not only there has been
a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts   C
on which commission of contempt has been alleged even the
said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in
consonance with the established principles of exercise of
contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a
conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed
the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010. We, accordingly, hold           D
that no case of commission of any contempt of this Court's
order dated 1.9.201 O is made out. Consequently, Contempt
Petition No. 3/2012 is dismissed. For reasons already
recorded, Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 shall also
stand closed.                                                           E

R.P.                               Contempt Petition dismissed.