Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
8. On the ground that the said ex parte order dated 12.1.2007 was not complied, the respondent again rushed to the High Court with a Contempt Petition. In that petition, the High Court made an ex parte order dated 13.2.2007 directing the Branch Manager of the Dehradun Branch of the Bank to appear in person on 3.4.2007 if the interim order dated 12.1.2007 issued in the writ petition was not by then compiled with.
9. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2007, the Bank and its officers have filed SLP (C) No. 6124 of 2007. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court in the Contempt Proceedings, the two officers of the Bank to whom notice has been issued filed SLP (Crl.) No.1870 of 2007. This Court on 23.4.2007 directed issue of notice in both the special leave petitions. As respondent appeared through counsel at the time of preliminary hearing, this Court also noted that the respondent had retired on completion of 30 years of service in November, 2006 and recorded the submission of the respondent that he was prepared to accept the retiral benefits without prejudice to his rights. Accordingly, the retiral benefits have been released to the respondent and the contempt proceedings were stayed on 18.8.2008. [201 O] 2 S.C.R.
10. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with an ex parte interim order of the H!gh Court, as the respondent in a writ or contempt proceedings can appear and seek vacation, or discontinuance, or modification of such ex parte order. But where there are special and exceptional features or B circumstances resulting in or leading to abuse of process of court, this Court, may interfere. This case falls under such special and rare category. The respondent, though retired in accordance with the rules of the Bank, using the tag of 'person with disability', has attempted to virtually terrorise the Bank and C its senior officers by initiating a series of proceedings and securing ex parte interim orders by misrepresenting the facts. The Chief Commissioner acting under the Disabilities Act, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the High Court in its contempt jurisdiction, have passed ex parte interim orders, D requiring the Bank and its officers to act contrary to the Bank's Rules when no prima facie was made out. Let us deal with each of these successive ex parte interim orders. Interim direction of the Chief Commissioner
11. Under the Rules, an officer of the Bank, shall retire on completion of 30 years of service. The respondent was accordingly retired on completion of thirty years. He was not denied any retiral benefits. He was not entitled, as of right, to continue beyond thirty years of service. In faCt, he did not want to continue in service, as his grievance was that he ought to have been permitted to retire under the Exit Policy Scheme. The grievance of the respondent had apparently nothing to do with his being a person with a disability. Prima facie neither section 47 nor any other provision of the Disabilities Act was G attracted. But, the Chief Commissioner chose to issue a show cause notice on the complaint and also issued an ex parte direction not to give effect to the order of retirement. He overlooked and ignored the fact that the retirement from service was on completion of the prescribed period of service as per the service regulations, which was clearly mentioned in the letter STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] of retirement dated 17 .11.2006; and that when an employee was retired in accordance with the regulations, no interim order can be issued to continue him in service beyond the age of retirement. The Chief Commissioner also overlooked and ignored the fact that as an authority functioning under the Disabilities Act, he has no power or jurisdiction to issue a s direction to the employer not to retire an employee. In fact, under· the Scheme of the Disabilities Act, the Chief Commissioner (or the Commissioner) has no power to grant any interim direction.
12. The functions of the Chief Commissioner are set out in Sections 58 and 59 of the Act. Section 58 provides that the Chief Commissioner shall have the following functions:- (a) (b) (c) coordinate the work of the Commissioners; monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the Central Government; take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities; (d) submit reports to the Central Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as the Government may prescribe. Section 59 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 58, the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities, any matters relating to (a) deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities; and (b) non- implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or· G instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. "Qle Commissioners appointed by the State Governments also have similar powers under Section A 61 and 62. Section 63 provides that the .Chief Commissioner and the Commissioners shall, for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit, in regard to the following matters: (a) summoning and B enforcing the attendance for witnesses; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or officer; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; and (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. Rule 42 of the c Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Chief Commissioner.
13. It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under D the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which include power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume the other E powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act. In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India – 1996 (6) SCC 606, this Court, dealing with Article 338 (8) of the Constitution of India (similar to section 63 of the F Disabilities Act), observed as follows : "It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the Commission has the power of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in sub-clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to i sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 'A injunctions, temporary or permanent, do no inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution." The order of the Chief Commissioner, not to implement the s order of retirement was illegal and without jurisdiction. The interim order in the writ proceedings.
14. The principles relating to grant of interim ex parte orders by the High Court in writ jurisdiction are well settled. Courts should not grant interim orders in a mechanical manner, on the assumption that the aggrieved party can always seek vacation. Grant of ex parte interim orders, that too mandatory orders, routinely or merely for the asking, on ground of sympathy or otherwise, will interfere with justice leading to administrative chaos, rather than serving the interests of justice. Where the writ petition does not make out a prima facie case or wh~re there is any doubt about the maintainability of the writ petition . or the jurisdiction of the court or the tenability of the claim, the High Court will not issue any interim order, that too when there is no irreparable loss or injury. At all events, the l:ligh Court will desist from issuing an ex parte mandatory injunction or direction which virtually has the effect of allowing the petition ex parte without hearing the respondents. Mandatory interim orders are issued in exceptional cases, only where failure to do so will lead to an irreversible or irretrievable situation. In service matters relating to retirement, there is no such need to issue ex parte mandatory directions. When the writ petition disclosed that the respondent was retired after 30 years of service in accordance with the Bank's regulations, there was no question of any irreparable injury or urgency.
15. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the High Court while directing notice on the writ petition filed by the respondent for implementation of the interim direction of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ought A not to have issued an ex parte order which virtually amounts to allowing the writ petition without hearing the Bank. The appropriate course would have been to give an opportunity to the Bank to explain its stand, particularly because the court itself felt a doubt about the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner B and its own jurisdiction. The Chief Commissioner issued the order at New Delhi. The respondent was working at Oehradun and was retired from service at Dehradun. Apparently no part of cause of action arose in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Be that as it may. We therefore held that the order dated 12.1.2007 is c unsustainable. The interim order in the contempt proceedings.
16. The respondent's complaint in the contempt petition was that the Bank had disobeyed the ex parte interim order D granted by the High Court on 12.1.2007. No period was prescribed by the High Court for compliance with its interim order. The show cause notice in the writ petition was issued on 22.1.2007 returnable on 15.2.2007. But even before that date, the respondent filed the contempt petition complaining of E non-compliance. Instead of issuing notice and giving an opportunity to the Bank or the Bank's officers, the High Court passed the following orders on 13.2.2007 : ·H "Issue notice to Opposite Party No.2 (Branch Manager of the Bank) to show cause as to why he may not be punished under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act for disobeying the order passed by this Court on 12.1.2007,which has so far not been complied with in letter and spirit. In case the order is not complied with, he shall appear on 3rd April, 2007 along with record." Before issuing any interim direction in contempt proceedings, or proposing to hold anyone guilty of contempt, the High Court should at least satisfy itself that person to whom the notice is issued is the person responsible to implement the order. The order retiring the respondent was not passed by the Branch STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] Manager and obviously he was not the officer who could implement the interim direction of theChief Commissioner or the High Court.
17. We are of the view that the contempt petition was premature. We are also of the view that the High Court at the stage of issuing notice, could not have assumed that there was wilful disobedience. At all events, as a consequence of our decision that the order dated 12.1.2007 was unwarranted, the direction for personal appearance on failure to comply with the order dated 12.1.2007 cannot be sustained. Remarks warranted by the conduct of the respondent
18. The conduct of the respondent requires to be commented upon. He was retired with effect from 30.11.2006, c by order dated 17.11.2006 after 30 years of service. He gave a complaint to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities at Dehradun, Uttarakhand, on 17.11.2006. He made another complaint to Chief Commissioner, New Delhi, on 20.11.2006. Though he retired at Dehradun, he filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court to enforce an interim order issued at New Delhi. He filed successive complaints, writ petition and contempt petition within a span of less than three months, without giving opportunity to the Bank to appear and show cause. He succeeded in evoking sympathy and securing ex parte interim orders repeatedly by highlighting his position as a person with disability, but failed to disclose full or correct facts.
19. The grievances and complaints of persons with disabilities have to be considered by courts and Authorities with compassion, understanding and expedition. They seek a life with dignity. The Disabilities Act seeks to provide them a level playing field, by certain affirmative actions so that they can have adequate opportunities in matters of education and employment. The Act also seeks to ensure non-discrimination of persons with disabilities, by reason of their disabilities. But the provisions of the Disabilities Act cannot be pressed into [201 O] 2 S.C.R. A service to seek any relief or advantage where the complaint or grievance relates to an alleged discrimination, which has nothing to do with the disability of the person. Nor do all grievances of persons with disabilities relate to discrimination c· based on disability. Illustration : Let us assume a case where the age of retirement in an organisation is 58 years for all class llD officers and 60 years for all class I officers. When a class II officer, who happens to be a person with disability, raises a dispute that such disparity amounts to discrimination, it has nothing to do with disabilities. Persons with disability as also persons without disability may contend in a court of law that such a provision is discriminatory. But, such a provision, even if it is discriminatory, has nothing to do with the person's disability and there is no question of a person with disability invoking the provisions of the Disabilities A~t. to claim relief regarding such discrimination. E Persons with disabilities are no less afflicted by human frailties "like ego, pride, jealousy, hate or misunderstanding, when compared with persons without disabilities. Many of their grievances and disputes may have nothing to do with disability. The fact that respondent claimed to be person with disability F appears to have swayed the Chief Commissioner and the High Court, to ignore the absence of any legal right and grant an interim remedy which in the normal course would not have been considered. Issuing interim orders when not warranted, merely because the petitioner is a person with disability, is as insidious as failing to issue interim orders when warranted. Conclusion
20. We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the interim directions contained in the order dated 12.1.2007 of the H High Court in WP No. 40(SB) of 2007 and the order dated STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 13.2.2007 in Crl. Misc. Case No.420(C) of 2007. We request the High Court to hear the appellants herein (Bank and its officers) and then dispose of the WP No. 40 (SB) of 2007 and Crl. Mis. Case No.420(C) of 2007 in accordance with law.
21. It is made clear that acceptance of retiral benefits by the respondent during the pendency before this court will not come in the way of his pursuing any remedy, in accordance with law by establishing that he is a person with disability and that he was discriminated, before a forum competent to consider his grievance/complaint. c R.P. Appeals allowed.