Contempt Proceedings - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Chandigarh High Court Gets Parking Upgrade: Supreme Court Approves Eco-Friendly Green Pavers

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions for constructing a verandah at Chandigarh's High Court (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and laying green paver blocks in a parking area, emphasizing sustainable development over strict adherence to heritage guidelines in this context. The Court found the verandah would not significantly impact the site's "Outstanding Universal Value" and the pavers were an eco-friendly solution for parking shortages. Contempt proceedings against the Chandigarh Administration were abated for twelve weeks to allow compliance. Facts Of The Case: The Chandigarh Administration (CA) appealed against orders issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest litigation. The High Court had issued a writ of mandamus on November 29, 2...

Supreme Court Ends Pension Discrimination for Merged Employees: Pension Rights to MPSEB Absorbed Workers

The Supreme Court ruled that employees absorbed by MPSEB from cooperative societies are entitled to pension under MPSEB rules, but only from their absorption date (15.03.2002), not their prior society service. Invoking Article 142, it mandated uniform treatment for all absorbed employees, upholding functional integration principles from Panchraj Tiwari (2014) while interpreting "qualifying service" under MP Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The Court rejected retrospective pension claims for pre-absorption periods as society service wasn’t state-regulated. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns employees of electricity distribution cooperative societies in Madhya Pradesh that were merged with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) in 2002 due to financial cri...