http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: V. KANAKARAJAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1996

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   517        1996 SCALE  (5)822

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T VENKATASWAMI. J.      A Division  Bench of  the Calcutta  High Court  by  its judgment and  order dated  16.3.1982 declined to entertain a application for contempt dated 29.6.1981. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.      In as much as the scope of the present appeal, which is directed against  the dismissal  of contempt application, is very  limited,   we  are  not  inclined  to  go  into  other contentions raised by the appellant challenging the validity of certain  related orders  passed by  the authorities. As a matter of  facts the High Court by the judgment under appeal held as follows while rejecting the contempt application :      "It was not directed by us that the      question  of   promotion   of   the      petitioner  should   be  considered      only   on    the   basis   of   the      confidential  reports.  It  may  be      that the effect of the confidential      reports  being  in  favour  of  the      petitioner, the  respondents should      have granted  him promotion. But we      are not  considering the  merits of      the   report   of   the   competent      authority in  not recommending  the      promotion of the petitioner. We are      also unable to consider whether the      competent authority  was  justified      in observing that the petitioner is      not  a   suitable   candidate   for      promotion as  per rules. The remedy      of the  petitioner, in our opinion,      lies  not  in  an  application  for      contempt but  in  a  separate  writ      petition against the order that was      communicated to  him by  the  Chief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Personnel  Officer  dated  May  18,      1981.      In the  circumstauces,  we  do  not      think that  the petitioner has been      able  to   make  out   a  case  for      contempt against  the  respondents.      The petitioner  will, ’however,  be      at liberty to move against the said      Order  of   the   Chief   Personnel      Officer by writ application."      We are  of the  view that  the High  Court was right in declining to  entertain the application for any contempt and reserving  the   right  of   the  petitioner   by   separate proceedings to  challenge the consequential orders passed by the authorities.      When the appeal was pending, the attention of the Court was drawn  to a  Memorandum dated  December 28.  1982 issued from the  office  of  the  Chief  Personnel  Officer,  South Eastern  Railway.  According  to  the  appellant,  the  said Memorandum  clothes   him  with   certain  rights   and  the authorities are  not extending  the benefits  arising out of that  Memorandum.   This  Court  by  Order  dated  10.4.1996 directed the  learned counsel  appearing for the respondents to seek  instructions on  that contention. In the additional counter affidavit  filed on  behalf of  the  respondents  on 23.4.1996 inter alia, it is stated as follows :      "Even though  the Committee did not      recommend   his    promotion,   the      General Manager  taking  a  lenient      view and  decided to  give  him  an      opportunity to work in Senior Scale      on condition  that a special report      should be called for on his working      and a  review made. His performance      was reviewed on the basis a special      report on  his  working  in  Senior      Scale for  the period  21.8.1985 to      20.2.1986.  The   Report  did   not      support his  continuance in  Senior      Scale and  decision was, therefore,      reached  to  revert  him  to  group      B/AEN.  He   was  reverted   w.e.f.      21.5.1986.      Shri    Kanakrajan     filed     an      application (O.A.No.  765 of  1990)      in   the   Central   Administrative      Tribunal. Madras  Bench against the      orders of his reversion as AEN. The      Tribunal,  in   its   order   dated      23.6.1986,      dismissed       the      application. A copy of the order of      the   Tribunal   is   attached   as      Annexure II."      No doubt  a rejoinder has been filed to this additional counter affidavit  by the  appellant. Be  that as it may. As pointed out  earlier, the arguments now raised and decisions sought on  that will  be beyond  the scope  of  the  present appeal which  arises out  of dismissal of an application for contempt. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with  the judgment  and order  of the  High  Court except reaffirming  the liberty reserved to the appellant to agitate by  separate proceedings if he is so advised against any proceeding  which has  gone against him. In other words, the dismissal  of this  appeal will  not stand in the way of the  appellant   from  challanging   orders  passed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

respondents subsequent  to the  disposal of the main case by the High  Court. In  the result,  the appeal  fails  and  is accordingly dismissed. No costs.