Shri V Srinivas Secretary, Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare v. All India S 30 Pensioners Association President Governing Body

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 13, 2025/j

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:13.05.2025 % LPA 302/2025 & CM APPL. 28577/2025 SHRI V SRINIVAS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG with Mr. T. P Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. with Mr. Samin Ansari, Under Secretary in person. Versus ALL INDIA S 30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Singh and Ms. Kajal S. Gupta, Ms. Bhumi Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal instituted under Clause X of the Letters Patent seeks exception to an order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Contempt Judge in CONT. CAS(C) NO. 1188/2024 and other connected matters, whereby a reference has been made by the learned Contempt Judge to the Division Bench in respect of a clarification of the order dated 20.03.2024, alleging contempt of which the contempt petition was filed. 2. Learned Contempt Judge has expressed his view that passage of the Finance Act, 2025 had necessitated the said clarification to be considered by the Division Bench which had passed the order dated 20.03.2024 on the issue as to the whether the Finance Act, 2025 shall obliterate and eclipse the order passed by the Court, thereby giving authority to the Central Government to recognize and endorse the distinction between various categories of the pensioners. 3. For the aforesaid purpose, the learned Contempt Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench, subject to orders of the Chief Justice. The record reveals that the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, whereupon the contempt petition along with the reference has been referred to the Division Bench for clarification of the order dated 20.03.2024. 4. It has been argued by learned ASG, Mr.Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the appellant that such a reference made by the learned Contempt Judge is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the reason that the only jurisdiction available to the learned Contempt Judge while entertaining and deciding the petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is to ascertain, as to whether the order or the judgment passed by the Court has been flouted or disobeyed deliberately. In his submissions, any other order of a nature which does not decide the issue as to whether judgment or the order of the Court has been disobeyed or flouted, would lie outside the scope of jurisdiction of the learned Contempt Judge under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this view, the submission is that the impugned order, having been passed without jurisdiction, needs to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing maintainability of Intra-Court appeals against orders passed by the learned Contempt Judge in the case of Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, 2006 SCC OnLine SC 628. He has stated that barring in the situations as contemplated and culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore (supra), any Intra-Court appeal against an order passed by the learned Contempt Judge would not be maintainable. In his submissions, he states that the order under challenge herein does not qualify as an order of the nature as mentioned in Midnapore (supra) so as to call for any interference in the order passed by learned Contempt Judge in this Intra-Court appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the opinion that the instant Intra-Court appeal would be maintainable for the reason that the order under challenge herein appears to be clearly beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction available to the learned Contempt Judge under Section 12 of