# Sri Amalendu Chandra & Anr v. Prof. Rajiv Shekhar, Director, I.I.T

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 316
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 689 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-amalendu-chandra-anr-v-prof-rajiv-shekhar-director-i-i-t-48020
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Education/Service Law - Appointment
-
Disciplinary
Proceeding/Enquiry
-
Institute of Technology
Act, 1961
-
Section 17(1); Statutes of older IIT's -
Clause 15(3).

Jurisdiction - If the High Court, for whatever
reason, decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute between the
parties, in contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an order is
open to challenge in an intra court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and there is
a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by
seeking special leave to appeal u/Article 136 of
the Constitution of India (in other cases). (Para
8)

B. Interpretation of order in contempt
jurisdiction - While exercising contempt
jurisdiction, the court must not travel
beyond the four corners of the order of
which violation is alleged and it should not
enter into questions that have not been
dealt with or decided in the judgment or
the order violation of which is alleged. If
the judgment or order does not contain any
specific direction regarding a matter or if there
is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein
it will be better to direct the parties to approach
the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification of the order instead of the court
exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon
itself
the
power
to
decide
the
original
proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the
court passing the judgment and order. (Para 9
to 11)

In the instant case, the writ petitioner (Prof.
Rajiv Shekhar) had filed Writ-A No. 16060 of
2019 for the limited relief of quashing the letter
dated 23.08.2019 conveying that approval for
disciplinary
proceeding
against
the
writ
petitioner may be obtained at the level of IIT
Council. The writ petitioner also prayed for
quashing the memorandum by which a penalty
was proposed against him. There was no prayer
in the writ petition w.r.t. emoluments payable to
him as an appointee on the post of Director.
The order dated 19.10.2019 recording the
undertaking of the counsel representing the
respondents in Writ-A No. 16060 of 2019 is only
in
respect
of
putting
those
impending
proceeding in abeyance. The scope of a writ
petition is ordinarily determined by the prayer
made therein. In such circumstances, the
undertaking recorded in the order dated
19.10.2019,
could
not
have
been
interpreted as an undertaking to the effect
that all the emoluments that are attached
to the post of Director shall be admissible
to the writ petitioner particularly, when
there was no such prayer in the writ
petition. The direction of the learned
Single
Judge,
vide
order
dated
21.10.2022, requiring the respondents to
grant HAG scale in compliance of the writ court
order and, on failure to do so, to appear before
the contempt court, is beyond the scope of
the order of the writ court of which
contempt was alleged and is, therefore,
liable to be set aside. (Para 12)

Respondent (Prof. Rajiv Shekhar) can move an
appropriate application either in the pending
writ petition or can file a fresh writ petition
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
317
w.r.t. grant of HAG scale as has been claimed
by him in the contempt jurisdiction. (Para 13)

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. We are thankful to learned A.G.A.
for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 316
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 689 of 2022

Sri Amalendu Chandra & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prof.
Rajiv
Shekhar,
Director,
I.I.T.,
(I.S.M.), Dhanbad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Manish Goyal, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Sri Ashok Khare, Sr.
Advocate

A. Education/Service Law - Appointment
-
Disciplinary
Proceeding/Enquiry
-
Institute of Technology
Act, 1961
-
Section 17(1); Statutes of older IIT's -
Clause 15(3).

Jurisdiction - If the High Court, for whatever
reason, decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute between the
parties, in contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an order is
open to challenge in an intra court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and there is
a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by
seeking special leave to appeal u/Article 136 of
the Constitution of India (in other cases). (Para
8)

B. Interpretation of order in contempt
jurisdiction - While exercising contempt
jurisdiction, the court must not travel
beyond the four corners of the order of
which violation is alleged and it should not
enter into questions that have not been
dealt with or decided in the judgment or
the order violation of which is alleged. If
the judgment or order does not contain any
specific direction regarding a matter or if there
is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein
it will be better to direct the parties to approach
the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification of the order instead of the court
exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon
itself
the
power
to
decide
the
original
proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the
court passing the judgment and order. (Para 9
to 11)

In the instant case, the writ petitioner (Prof.
Rajiv Shekhar) had filed Writ-A No. 16060 of
2019 for the limited relief of quashing the letter
dated 23.08.2019 conveying that approval for
disciplinary
proceeding
against
the
writ
petitioner may be obtained at the level of IIT
Council. The writ petitioner also prayed for
quashing the memorandum by which a penalty
was proposed against him. There was no prayer
in the writ petition w.r.t. emoluments payable to
him as an appointee on the post of Director.
The order dated 19.10.2019 recording the
undertaking of the counsel representing the
respondents in Writ-A No. 16060 of 2019 is only
in
respect
of
putting
those
impending
proceeding in abeyance. The scope of a writ
petition is ordinarily determined by the prayer
made therein. In such circumstances, the
undertaking recorded in the order dated
19.10.2019,
could
not
have
been
interpreted as an undertaking to the effect
that all the emoluments that are attached
to the post of Director shall be admissible
to the writ petitioner particularly, when
there was no such prayer in the writ
petition. The direction of the learned
Single
Judge,
vide
order
dated
21.10.2022, requiring the respondents to
grant HAG scale in compliance of the writ court
order and, on failure to do so, to appear before
the contempt court, is beyond the scope of
the order of the writ court of which
contempt was alleged and is, therefore,
liable to be set aside. (Para 12)

Respondent (Prof. Rajiv Shekhar) can move an
appropriate application either in the pending
writ petition or can file a fresh writ petition
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
317
w.r.t. grant of HAG scale as has been claimed
by him in the contempt jurisdiction. (Para 13)

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd.Vs
Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Para 3)

2. Jhareshwar Prasad Pal Vs Tarak Nath
Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 (Para 9)

3. Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing
Director, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. &
ors. Vs M. George Ravishekaran & ors., (2014) 3
SCC 373 (Para 10)

Present special appeal assails order dated
21.10.2022, passed by learned Single
Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.
5669 of 2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned
senior counsel, assisted by Sri Rohan
Gupta, for the appellants and Sri Ashok
Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by
Sri Avneesh Tripathi, for the respondent.

2. This intra court appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court
Rules
is
against
the
order
dated
21.10.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Contempt Application (Civil)
No. 5669 of 2022. The operative portion
of the order dated 21.10.2022 with which
the appellants are aggrieved is extracted
below:-

"This Court directs the opposite
party to file an affidavit before this Court
within three weeks complying with the
order of Writ Court in granting of HAG
scale which was subject to decision of
writ petition. In case of failure, the
opposite party shall remain present in the
Court on 06.12.2022."

3. The case of the appellant is that
they were opposite parties in Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 5669 of 2022
filed by the respondent alleging violation
of court's order dated 19.10.2019 in Writ
A No. 16060 of 2019; that the order dated
19.10.2019 nowhere mandates grant of
HAG scale to the writ petitioner; and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge
exercising
contempt
jurisdiction
exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a
direction as if it were a writ court. It is
thus prayed that the order of the learned
Single Judge be quashed. With regard to
the maintainability of the intra court
appeal, it is submitted that the impugned
direction is beyond the scope of the order
of which wilful disobedience is alleged
hence,
the
intra
court
appeal
is
maintainable in light of Supreme Court
decision in Midnapore Peoples Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5
SCC 399.

4. The learned counsel for the
respondent
submits
that
the
natural
consequence of the interim order dated
19.10.2019 passed in Writ A No. 16060 of
2019 would be that the writ petitioner (the
respondent herein) would be entitled to the
benefit of HAG scale therefore, denial of
such benefit amounts to wilful disobedience
of the writ court's order, as a result whereof,
the learned Single Judge while exercising
contempt jurisdiction is well within its
jurisdiction to direct for grant of HAG scale.
Consequently, the order impugned is not
liable to be interfered with.

5. To have a clear understanding of
the issues that arise for our consideration in
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this appeal, a glimpse at the relevant facts
would be apposite. These are as follows:-

(i) The respondent, that is, the
contempt-applicant
in
Contempt
Application (Civil) No.56669 of 2022 is the
writ petitioner, who filed Writ A No.16060
of 2019. He was facing an enquiry in
respect of certain allegations concerning
harassment of an appointee under the
Scheduled
Caste
quota.
During
that
enquiry,
in
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred under Section 17(1) of the
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 read
with Clause 15(3) of the Statutes of older
IIT's, the President of India, in his capacity
as a Visitor of the Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad approved appointment of the writ
petitioner (the respondent herein) as
Director of IIT (ISM), Dhanbad. As the
proceedings pending/ proposed against the
writ petitioner were in respect of his
conduct as Professor, Department of
Material Science and Engineering, IIT,
Kanpur, he being appointed as Director of
IIT (ISM), Dhanbad by order of the Visitor,
a question arose as to whether those
proceedings
could
continue
without
approval of the Visitor. The concerned
ministry, however, conveyed vide letter
dated August 23, 2019 that the matter may
be resolved at the level of IIT Council.
Questioning this letter dated August 23,
2019 and the memorandum proposing
punishment, the respondent herein i.e. the
writ petitioner filed Writ A No. 16060 of
2019.
In
this
writ
proceeding,
on
19.10.2019, following order was passed:-

"Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Avneesh
Tipathi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri
Rohan
Gupta,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
second
&
third
respondent and Shri Shabhajeet Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the Union of
India.

All the respondents shall file
counter
affidavit
within
four
weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed
within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter before appropriate
Bench. It shall not be treated as tied up or
part heard to this Bench.

Petitioner is presently posted as
Director, Indian Institute of Technology,
(Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad. The
instant petition is directed against the
order dated 23 August 2019 passed by the
first respondent-Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resources & Development, New
Delhi, whereby, the Chairman, IIT Council
who happens to be Hon'ble Minister of
Human Resources & Development has
conveyed his approval for proceeding
against the petitioner.

On
specific
query,
learned
counsels appearing for the first and third
respondent submit that till date approval
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble
Visitor, has not been obtained from the IIT
Council. It is urged that matter is yet to be
placed before the Council. In view thereof,
learned counsel for the second and third
respondent, on instructions, submits that
without
seeking
view/opinion
of
the
Ministry
of
Human
Resources
&
Development, New Delhi, in terms of the
direction of the Hon'ble Visitor, the second
respondent-Registrar, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur, would keep the matter
in abeyance.

The undertaking is recorded and
accepted.

In view thereof, no order is
required to be passed on the stay
application at this stage."

(ii) By alleging that consequent to
his appointment as Director, IIT (ISM),
Dhanbad, the respondent (Prof. Rajiv
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
319
Shekhar) was entitled to HAG scale;
whereas, its payment was withheld on
account
of
impending
disciplinary
proceeding against him, which were kept in
abeyance by the undertaking recorded in
the order dated 19.10.2019 and, till date,
approval of the Visitor or consent of IIT
Council was not obtained, Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 5669 of 2022 was
filed by claiming that denial of HAG scale
amounts to violation of the undertaking
recorded on 19.10.2019.

(iii) It is in this background, the
learned Single Judge entertained the
contempt
proceeding
and
issued
the
impugned direction dated 21.10.2022, after
recording its reasons, which are extracted
below:-

"After hearing learned counsel
for respective parties, this Court finds that
opposite party was not justified in issuing
the letter dated 08.08.2022 withholding the
grant of HAG scale to the applicant once
the writ Court had kept the proceedings in
abeyance subject to the opinion of the
Ministry
of
Human
Resources
&
Development, New Delhi in terms of
direction of Hon'ble Visitor. As the Hon'ble
Visitor had declined to interfere in the
matter and relegated the same to the IIT
Council and IIT Council has not taken any
unanimous decision in the proceedings
against the applicant for initiating the
proceedings, the unilateral decision of the
Chairman, IIT Council cannot be made
basis for withholding the grant of HAG
scale to the applicant."

6. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
direction
issued,
vide
order
dated
21.10.2022, is, firstly, beyond the scope of
the writ petition as well as writ court's
order dated 19.10.2019 as there was no
prayer for HAG scale in the writ petition
moreover the order dated 19.10.2019 does
not at all deal with the admissibility of
HAG scale to the writ petitioner (contemptapplicant
/respondent
herein)
and,
secondly, the contempt court could not
have acted as a writ court as to issue
directions in respect of a cause of action
which was not within the scope of the writ
proceeding. It has been contended that in
the writ petition the prayer was limited to
quashing the order dated 23.08.2019,
whereby the approval of Minister of
Human
Resource
Department
for
proceeding against the writ petitioner (i.e.
the respondent herein) was conveyed; and
to quash the memorandum proposing a
penalty upon the writ petitioner. It was
urged that in these circumstances the order
of
the
learned
Single
Judge,
while
exercising contempt jurisdiction, was in
excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore,
liable to be set aside.

7. Sri Ashok Khare, who appears for
the respondent, submitted that although
there may not be a clear direction of the
writ court for payment of HAG scale but
the payment of HAG scale is a natural
consequence of appointment as a Director
and since it has been withheld because of
the impending disciplinary proceeding
which
was
put
in
abeyance
vide
undertaking given to the writ court dated
19.10.2019, the act of withholding the same
amounted to violating the undertaking,
therefore,
while
exercising
contempt
jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge was
well within its jurisdiction in issuing such
directions which were necessary to enforce
writ court's order. He, therefore, submits
that the order of the learned Single Judge
calls for no interference.

8. We have accorded consideration to
the rival submissions and have also noticed
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the relevant facts of the case for the
purposes of deciding this intra court appeal.
Before we proceed further, it would be
useful to address the issue with regard to
maintainability of the intra court appeal
under the High Court Rules against an
order passed by a learned Singe Judge in
contempt jurisdiction. In this regard we
may observe that in Midnapore's case
(supra), the apex court in respect of
maintainability of an intra court appeal
against orders in contempt proceedings, in
paragraph 11 (V), observed: "If the High
Court, for whatever reason, decides an
issue or makes any direction, relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties, in a contempt proceedings, the
aggrieved person is not without remedy.
Such an order is open to challenge in an
intra court appeal (if the order was of a
learned Single Judge and there is a
provision for an intra-court appeal), or by
seeking special leave to appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in
other cases)." In light of the decision
noticed above, as the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge amounts to a direction
as a writ court and there exists right of an
intra court appeal under the Rules of the
Court, in our view, the intra court appeal is
maintainable.

9. At this stage, it would be useful to
notice the law as to what extent the court
exercising
contempt
jurisdiction
can
interpret the order of which violation is
alleged
and
issue
directions.
In
Jhareshwar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath
Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, in paragraph
11, the Supreme Court observed: "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. ...... If the judgment
or order does not contain any specific
direction regarding a matter or if there is
any ambiguity in the directions issued
therein it will be better to direct the parties
to approach the court which disposed of the
matter for clarification of the order instead
of
the
court
exercising
contempt
jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to
decide the original proceeding in a manner
not dealt with by the court passing the
judgment and order."

10. Similar view has been reiterated
by a three-judge bench of the Supreme
Court in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman &
Managing Director, Oil And Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. & others v. M.
George Ravishekaran & others, (2014) 3
SCC 373, wherein, in paragraph 19, it was
observed: "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 selfevident 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. .....The Courts must
also ensure that while considering a
contempt plea the power available to the
Court in other corrective jurisdictions like
review or appeal is not trenched upon. No
order or direction supplemental to what
has been already expressed should be
issued by the Court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt
law; such an exercise is more appropriate
in other jurisdictions."
12 All. Shree Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321

11. From the law noticed above, it is
clear that while exercising contempt
jurisdiction, the court must not travel
beyond the four corners of the order of
which violation is alleged and it should not
enter into questions that have not been dealt
with or decided in the judgment or the
order violation of which is alleged. If the
judgment or order does not contain any
specific direction regarding a matter or if
there is any ambiguity in the directions
issued therein it will be better to direct the
parties to approach the court which
disposed of the matter for clarification of
the order instead of the court exercising
contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the
power to decide the original proceeding in
a manner not dealt with by the court
passing the judgment and order.

12. In light of the law noticed above,
we now proceed to examine whether while
issuing the impugned direction, the learned
Single Judge exceeded its jurisdiction as a
contempt court. In the instant case, on the
basis of facts noticed above, we find that the
writ petitioner (Prof. Rajiv Shekhar) had filed
Writ A No. 16060 of 2019 for the limited
relief of quashing the letter dated 23rd
August 2019 conveying that approval for
disciplinary proceeding against the writ
petitioner may be obtained at the level of IIT
Council. The writ petitioner also prayed for
quashing the memorandum by which a
penalty was proposed against him. There was
no prayer in the writ petition with regard to
emoluments payable to him as an appointee
on the post of Director. The order dated
19.10.2019 recording the undertaking of the
counsel representing the respondents in Writ
A No. 16060 of 2019 is only in respect of
putting those impending proceeding in
abeyance. The scope of a writ petition is
ordinarily determined by the prayer made
therein.
In
such
circumstances,
the
undertaking recorded in the order dated
19.10.2019, in our view, could not have been
interpreted as an undertaking to the effect that
all the emoluments that are attached to the
post of Director shall be admissible to the
writ petitioner particularly, when there was
no such prayer in the writ petition. In such
view of the matter and in light of the judicial
precedents noticed above, governing the
scope of contempt jurisdiction, we are of the
considered view that the direction of the
learned Single Judge, vide order dated
21.10.2022, requiring the respondents to
grant HAG scale in compliance of the writ
court order and, on failure to do so, to appear
before the contempt court, is beyond the
scope of the order of the writ court of which
contempt was alleged and is, therefore, liable
to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The
direction to the extent indicated above is set
aside.

13. It is clarified that our order will
not preclude the respondent (Prof. Rajiv
Shekhar)
to
move
an
appropriate
application either in the pending writ
petition or to file a fresh writ petition in
respect of grant of HAG scale as has been
claimed
by
him
in
the
contempt
jurisdiction.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 321
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 7697 of 2022

Shree Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: