Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 138 (JK)

Ab. Aziz Kaul v. M. Y. Qadiri Vice Chancellor

2001-07-16

S.K.GUPTA

body2001
1. These contempt proceedings have crept up out of judgment dated 2.2.1999 passed in SWP No., 5156/92 initiated by the petitioners alleging wilful infraction of the judgment within a reasonable despatch as directed. It is further alleged by the petitioners that in order to implement the judgment of the court, the respondents have constituted a Grievance Committee, which decided and recommended the placement of the petitioners in respective grades in terms of Categorization Scheme as revised from time to time without payment of any arrears to them entitling them to increments only. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents, though considered their cases under the Categorization Scheme, but intentionally and deliberately not complied with the court directions in according consideration to the petitioners on the analogy of M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh and thus committed contempt of the Court. According to Mr. Haqani, the respondents were to consider the cases of the petitioners under the Categorization Scheme and while doing so were also required to take into consideration the analogy and grant benefit to the petitioners as had been given to M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh. 3. The respondent filed compliance report, which in verbiage reads as under: "In compliance with the Honble High Court order No. F.D in SWP No. 3156/92 dated 2.2.1999, your case has been considered for your placement in higher pay scales in terms of prevailing rules. The case of M/S G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh has also been taken into consideration. Upon consideration, it has been found that you are not entitled to any benefit of higher pay scale. However the process of withdrawing the benefit given to above officials is being initiated." 4. According to Mr. Haqani, direction was not only to consider the case of the petitioners under the Categorization Scheme., but the petitioners were to be considered in the same manner and on the same analogy as in case of M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioners have been considered in the same manner. The Grievance Committee, which held its meeting on 28.08.1999, considered the question of placement of Ali Mohammad Parray and Abdul Aziz Koul, STAs in senior selection scale of Rs. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioners have been considered in the same manner. The Grievance Committee, which held its meeting on 28.08.1999, considered the question of placement of Ali Mohammad Parray and Abdul Aziz Koul, STAs in senior selection scale of Rs. 700-1100 and decided as under: "The committee perused the old Caderization Scheme which was in operation from 01-04-1980 where in the initial and selection scales of different categories viz. Rs.550- 900 and Rs.700-1100 have been indicated. For placing in the next higher pay scale the scheme clearly stipulates that those who have put in at least 10 years continuous service in a particular post shall according to the length of service of such post be eligible for award of respective selection grade. This scheme was effective from 01-04-1980 and since at the time M/S Ali Mohammad Parray and Ab. Aziz Koul were not having 10 years of service in the initial pay scale, obviously they could not be considered eligible for the selection scale. However, in another case pertaining to M/S G.R. Wani and S.Mehar Singh which were identical in nature in their case, the Screening Committee deviated from the basic condition of 10 years service in a particular post by taking into account the total length of service rendered in an other post in the University. On this analogy M/S Ali Mohd. Parray and Ab. Aziz Koul are claiming similar kind of treatment. The matter was once rendered to the Financial Advisor, who strongly objected to this and then to the University Council on 4-10-93 and 28-11-1994. In its last meeting viz. 28.11.1994 the University Council did not consider these 2 incumbents eligible for placement in the senior scale and at the same time resolved to examine the cases of M/S G.R. Wani and S. Mehr Singh afresh. 5. The cases o the petitioners were to be examined under the Categorization Scheme in the same manner as was done in cases of M/s.G.R.Wani and Mehar Singh in terms of the judgment of the court, which provides as under: "Respondents shall accord consideration to the petitioners under the scheme of caderisation forthwith and while doing so analogy as evolved in respect of M/s.G.R. Wani and Mehar Singh shall also be taken into consideration. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with CMPs. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with CMPs. The respondents shall take the decision within a reasonable despatch and the decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioners." 6. The Committee in its report has observed that this Scheme was effective from 01.04.1980 and since at the time Ali Mohammad Parray and Ab. Aziz Koul were not having 10 years of service in the initial pay scale, obviously, they could not be considered eligible for the selection scale. However, in case of M/s G.R. Wani and S.Mehar Singh, which was identical in nature, the Screening Committee in their case deviated from the basic condition of 10 years service in a particular post. The matter was referred to the University Council, which in its meeting did not consider the cases of the petitioners eligible for placement in senior scales and at the same time resolved to examine the case of M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh afresh. 7. The petitioners counsel, Mr. Haqani, has laid much stress in stating that the cases of the petitioners have not been considered in the same manner and on the analogy as was done in the cases of M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh, which the respondents are obliged to accord consideration in compliance to the judgment of the Court in letter and spirit, and the respondents, having not done it, have disobeyed the Court order. 8. Respondents in the compliance report unambiguously stated that cases of the petitioners were considered for placement in higher pay scales and in doing so cases of M/s G.R. Wani and S. Mehar Singh have also been taken into consideration and it has been found that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of higher pay scales. In the present case, the petitioners pleaded that they have not been given effective consideration in terms, of the judgment of the Court. It cannot be said that their cases have not been considered by the respondents as is indicated in the communication No. F (SCN-Admn) KU dated May 09,2001. By now it is well settled that consideration good or bad cannot be a ground for initiating contempt proceedings. It cannot be said that their cases have not been considered by the respondents as is indicated in the communication No. F (SCN-Admn) KU dated May 09,2001. By now it is well settled that consideration good or bad cannot be a ground for initiating contempt proceedings. The question is whether the consideration proceedings once made is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether this is in conformity with the direction issued by the court, it is seen that once the cases of the petitioners have been considered whether that consideration is in the right perspective or may have been wrongly considered, but that is not a matter to be taken cognizance of in the contempt proceedings. 9. Taking an over all conspectus, I find that there is a compliance of the Court direction and the cases of the petitioners have been considered. Whether that consideration is right or wrong is not a matter to be taken note of in the present contempt proceedings because the direction of the Court was only to consider and that has been complied with. The petitioners, if not satisfied, can re agitate the matter in the appropriate legal remedy available to them. 10. I do not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.