Supreme Court of India

SH. VIJAY SINGH, SECRETARY HOME AND ANR.versusMITTANLAL HINDOLIYA

Citation: 1996 INSC 1270
Decided: 1 November 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The Tribunal was not justified in issuing further directions; the appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's directions are set aside.

Summary

The respondent, a Sub‑Inspector, applied to the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for correction of his date of birth from 5 August 1934 to 16 July 1938. The Tribunal directed the employer to consider his representation, which was subsequently considered and rejected. The respondent then alleged contempt, claiming the employer wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal’s order under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Tribunal held that there was no deliberate disobedience and, finding that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind, directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh. On appeal, the Court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in issuing such further directions and concluded that it was not, as the representation had already been duly considered and rejected. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s directions were set aside, and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the employer to reconsider the employee's representation after it had already been considered and rejected.
Whether the employer's actions amounted to contempt of court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue further directions after finding no deliberate disobedience.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Acts. 12

Subjects

date of birth correctionservice lawcontempt of courtadministrative tribunalrepresentationSection 12appealspecial leave

Judgment

A           SH. VIJAY SINGH, SECRETARY HOME AND ANR.
                                       v.
                           MITTANLAL HJNDOLIYA

                             NOVEMBER I, 1996

B             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Service Law :

         Date of birth-Correction of-Application by employee-Tribunal
    directing employer to consider representation of the emp/oyee-
C   Representation rejected-Held, representation was duly considered and
    rejected-Tribunal's order not deliberately disobeyed-Tribunal ought not
    have issued further directions to consider the case afresh.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14920 of
D 1996.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.95 of the Madhya Pradesh
    Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.N0.99 of 1994.

          Prashant Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.
E
          Dr. J.B. Gaur for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F         Delay condoned

          Leave granted.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the order in the contempt
G proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the Madhya Pradesh
    Administrative Tribunal at Indore in Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of
    1994.

          The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-
    Inspector in the Police Department on January I, 1960 and his date of
H   birth in the High School Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed
                                        350
           VIJAY SINGH,SECY.HOMEv. MIITANLALHINDOLIYA                  351


an application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth contending A
that his date of birth was July 16, 1938. The Tribunal by order dated
February 25, 1994 disposed of the application with a direction to consider
the representation of the respondent. The representation was considered
and rejected by proceedings dated May 23, 1994. Consequently, the
respondent filed a contempt application contending that the appellants
have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and B
sought for initiation of the proceedings against the appellants under Section
 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal
has held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of
the court as direction was to consider the case·afresh on the finding that
the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the issue and,
therefore, the impugned order came to be issued. The question is: whether C
the Tribunal was right in its giving directions? It is seen that the Assistant
Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative officer assists the
Administrator, namely, the Director General of PoUce. He had put up the
note on it and after consideration of it the Director General of Police had
made a note 'inform the respondent'. Obviously, after consideration of
the case he did not agree with the claim of the respondent and accepted the D
report submitted by his subordinate, viz. Assistant Inspector General of
Police. Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given to the
respondent's representation as per the .directions given by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal having held that the respondent has not deliberately dirnbeyed
the order, there is no power to issue further directions:
                                                                               E
         The appeal is accordingly allowed. The directions are set aside, No
costs.

G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "date of birth correction"Sign in to search