Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 34 (ORI)

Sheshadev Pradhan v. Chandra Prakash Jain

2005-01-13

J.P.MISHRA, P.K.MOHANTY

body2005
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioners are serving as teachers in the Talcher Thermal High School and Primary Schools at Talcher Thermal in the district of Angul. The schools were owned and run by the Orissa State Electricity Board and ultimately upon vesting of T.T.P.S. in N.T.P.C., all educational institutions of T.T.P.S. were transferred to N.T.P.C. The petitioners and some others approached this Court in O.J.C. No.13155 of 1998 alleging dis¬crimination meted out to them by Office Order dated 21.8.1998 with regard to pay scale, allowances, benefits and other terms and conditions of service, more specifically, Clause 1.2.1. of the Office Order. This Court, by order dated 5.3.1999, disposed of the writ application in the following terms : “In view of the aforesaid position, we direct that necessary rules and regulations be framed by NTPC keeping in view the prescriptions in Section 11 of the 1994 Act, as accepted in the counter affidavit filed by it. Such action be taken within three months from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” The order having not been complied with, the petitioners filed Original Crl. Misc. Case No.95 of 2000 alleging violation of the order dated 5.3.1999. The Original Crl. Misc. Case was disposed of by order dated 14.3.2001. allowing eight weeks time to the opposite parties to comply with the direction, if not already complied with, as a last chance. It was observed that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order if any passed, it was open to them to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding. Alleging non-compliance with that order dated 14.3.2001, the petitioners have filed this application for suitably punishing the contemnors for deliberate violation of the order dated 5.3.1999. 2. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit seem to have taken the stand that the orders have been complied with and the necessary rules and regulations have been framed keeping in view Section 11 of the T.T.P.S. Act and the Notification has been issued. This fact was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. By order dated 8.10.2004, this Court allowed the opposite parties to file additional affidavit and to take such further action as is necessary for due compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. Pursuant to the order, an addi¬tional affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties on 7.12.2004. By order dated 8.10.2004, this Court allowed the opposite parties to file additional affidavit and to take such further action as is necessary for due compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. Pursuant to the order, an addi¬tional affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties on 7.12.2004. In Paragraph 7 thereof, it has been stated that taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the matter was examined further by N.T.P.C. and a fresh order No.045/HR-ER/13614 dated 3.12.2004 has been issued. The teaching staffs have already received the aforesaid office order. The endorse¬ment/fixation orders of the 28 individual teachers are under process and will be shortly issued. 3. On perusal of the office order dated 3.12.2004, which has been annexed as Annexure-C/1 to the additional affidavit filed by the N.T.P.C., it appears that service regulations in respect of the teaching staffs have been framed therein. 4. Sri S. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, has submitted that the office order fixing the terms and conditions of the teaching staffs vide Annexure C/1 is not in consonance with Section 11 of the Talcher Thermal Power Station (Transfer and Acquisition) Act, 1994, since the petition¬ers have been given pre-revised scales of pay, which is discrimi¬natory. Referring to the scale of pay of certain other staffs like Peon and Office Assistants, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the salaries fixed for teachers are less than the salaries given to the Clerks and even Peons and the Management has fixed such scale to humiliate the teachers. A perusal of Annexure-5 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, prima facie, shows that the salaries allowed to the teachers like the petitioners are less than the salary allowed to some other employees either of the same or lower grade. This fact however is seriously disputed by Sri Jayant Das, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties. Whether there is disparity in the scales of pay allowed to the petitioners or not is not the subject matter of the present proceeding, since it is a proceed¬ing under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged violation of the Court’s order. The direction of this Court was for framing the conditions of service keeping in view Section 11 of the Acquisi¬tion Act. 5. The direction of this Court was for framing the conditions of service keeping in view Section 11 of the Acquisi¬tion Act. 5. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the fixation of scales of pay and other conditions, are entitled to challenge or agitate the same in a separate proceeding or may move the Management for the purpose, but the same cannot be considered in the present contempt application. However, we feel that the points urged on behalf of the petitioners need proper consideration by the Man¬agement. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no wilful or deliberate violation of this Court’s order, as alleged. However, while dropping the contempt proceeding, we observe that in the event the petitioners raise their grievance with regard to fixation and parity of their scale of pay by way of a representation, the Management should consider the same in its proper perspective. J. P. MISHRA, J. I agree. Application disposed of.