S.M. Subramaniam ORDER
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
1. The present Contempt Petition is filed, seeking implementation of the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in W.P. No. 29249 of 2010, this Court passed an order, which reads as follows:
"7. Therefore, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned orders and the respondents are directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioners, counting the entire length of service including the service rendered by the petitioners as Headmasters of Elementary School as per the V Pay Commission recommendations. It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
2. Though this Court passed an order on 15.09.2011, the legal notice itself was sent by the writ petitioner on 12.09.2013, after a lapse of two years from the date of passing of the orders by this Court. Thus, the writ petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the remedy. The writ petitioner has slept over his right in respect of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 29249 of 2010. Thus, there is an enormous delay even in pursuing the matter and also in filing the present Contempt Petition. The present Contempt Petition has been filed after a lapse of about two and half (2 1/2) years from the date of passing of the order. Thus, the question of limitation also is to be considered for the purpose of entertaining the present Contempt Petition.
3. Thus, this Court has to examine the maintainability of the contempt application in relation to the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides limitation for actions for contempt " No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
4. Thus, it is clear that a limitation is prescribed for filing a contempt application against an order passed by the Court and one year period is prescribed from the date of cause of action arose. In the case on hand, the cause of action arose in August 2009 and the contempt application was filed on 15.07.2014. Thus, there is a delay of about 5 years even in filing the present contempt application.
5. Next question to be considered in this regard is that, whether this Court can invoke Article 215 of Constitution of India for entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year.
6. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that High Courts to be Courts of record '' Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."
7. Thus, the Constitution provides powers to the High Court to punish for contempt itself. No doubt, such a power is granted for the effective implementations of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. However, this Court has to consider, whether such a power can be exercised beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, and under what circumstances.
8. The general principle of law in this regard is that whenever there is a Special Act enacted in respect of limitation, the powers conferred under the Constitution as well as the Special Act to be read cogently and harmoniously. Harmonious reading of these pro........