Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3141 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. Tejinder Kaur

2006-08-04

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment 1. The petitioner along with others filed CWP No.17005 of 1989 claiming re-fixation of his pay w. e. f.1.1.1978 on the ground that he was entitled to certain additional increments in view of the post-graduate qualification possessed by him and also for the reason that such kind of benefit was extended to one of his juniors. The aforesaid writ petition along with bunch of other writ petitions, was allowed with a direction to step-up the pay of the petitioner equivalent to the one being drawn by their juniors, irrespective of the fact whether they joined the service with post-graduate qualification or they acquired the same after joining the service. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the respondents passed an order dated 22.11.1999 whereby petitioners pay was refixed. The said order was produced before the Contempt Court as by that time C. O. C. P. No.1022 of 1999 had been filed by the petitioner. The contempt petition was disposed of after observing that the orders passed by this Court have been complied with. 2. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2004. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice dated 2.2.2005 pointing out that at the time of re-fixation of his pay, the petitioner was entitled to three advance increments on account of post-graduate qualification (M. A. Second Division) possessed by him prior to joining of the service, however, the then District Education Officer (S), Amritsar, erroneously fixed his pay by giving reference to one Chhotu Ram, SS Master, GSSS Chaminda Devi, Amritsar. As is apparent from the tenor of the show cause notice, it was issued to protect the benefit granted by this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.1995 passed in CWP No.17005 of 1989 but to withdraw the additional benefit to which, according to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to and was granted to him erroneously. Eventually, the authorities passed a self-speaking order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioners pay has been refixed. A perusal of the order reveals that the petitioner himself admitted that there could not be any parity between him and Chhotu Ram, rather, he wanted that his pay be re-fixed at par with one Gulzar Singh. Eventually, the authorities passed a self-speaking order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioners pay has been refixed. A perusal of the order reveals that the petitioner himself admitted that there could not be any parity between him and Chhotu Ram, rather, he wanted that his pay be re-fixed at par with one Gulzar Singh. The order further suggests that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of three increments on account of the qualification of M. A. possessed by him and his pay has been accordingly refixed as on 1.1.1978. 3. Alleging that the aforesaid order has been passed in derogation of the judgment dated 1.3.1995 passed in CWP No.17005 of 1989 as also the statement made before the contempt Court, this contempt petition has been filed. 4. In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit has been filed by Mohan Singh Cheema, District Education Officer (SE), Amritsar, reiterating that the judgment dated 1.3.1995 passed by this Court and referred to above, has been complied with in letter and spirit. However, erroneous pay fixation, which the petitioner allegedly procured through misrepresentation, has since been rectified. 5. In support of his contention that the action of the respondents amounts to committing contempt of this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon two inter-locutory orders dated 28.4.1999 and 29.3.2005 (Annexures P7 and P9) respectively. He has also referred to another order dated 7.2.2006 passed in COCP No.1285 of 1999, a copy of which has been supplied during the course of hearing. In the absence of detailed facts in relation to the claims and entitlement of the persons who had filed the contempt petitions in which interlocutory orders (Annexures P-7 and P9) were passed, it is difficult to apply these orders to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As noticed above, the benefit of additional increments on the basis of postgraduate qualification possessed by the petitioner at the time of joining the service has been given to him in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. If under the threat of contempt proceedings or others, the petitioner has got a benefit to which he was not entitled in law, he can not be permitted to enjoy it at the cost of State exchequer. If under the threat of contempt proceedings or others, the petitioner has got a benefit to which he was not entitled in law, he can not be permitted to enjoy it at the cost of State exchequer. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the respondents are guilty of disobeying, much less willfully or deliberately, any specific direction issued by this Court. Be that as it may and having regard to the scope of interference in such like matters in the contempt proceedings, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the speaking order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure P-6), if so advised. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioners retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a retiree, the respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner on the basis of refixed pay only subject to his furnishing an undertaking that in the event of the failure of his challenge to the order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure P-5), he and/or his legal representatives shall be liable to refund the amount sought to be recovered from him. His retiral benefits shall, however, be released within a period of two months from today, if already not paid. Disposed of. 7. Rule discharged.