Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1597 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sudha Chhipa

2014-12-04

S.K.GANGELE, SHEEL NAGU

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/State against the order dt. 13.01.2014 passed in W.P.No.2147/2013. 3. Earlier the respondents had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.1650/2000. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dt. 1.12.2004 with the following directions :- “Even though respondents have refused the aforesaid but the facts remains that the question of grant of aforesaid benefit stands concluded by decision rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. 1994 JLJ 73 which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court so also by a judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.no.3440/1995. The question was thereafter again considered and decided in the case of M.P.Ashakshiya Mahavidyalayeen Shekshetrahter Karmachari Sangh v. The State of M.P. and another passed in W.P.No.2490/02 decided on 8.12.2003. In all these cases after considering the earlier judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar it has been held that employees of non-government college are entitled to the same pay scale as is being extended to corresponding category of employee in the Govt. College. Considering the aforesaid this petition is allowed. For the grounds and reasons already indicated and discussed in the judgment referred to hereinabove, respondents are directed to extent the benefit of pay scale as has been granted to the corresponding category of employee in the Govt. College. Let action be taken for extending the aforesaid benefit as per prevailing liability of State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondents are also directed to release the grant-in-aid to the Institute in question in accordance with the directives issued in the case of Dr.Sharique Ali Vs. State of M.P. as modified by the Supreme Court from time to time. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of.” 4. When the directions were not complied with, a contempt petition was filed before this court in regard to non-compliance of the order dt. 1.12.2004 passed in W.P.No.1650/2000. It was registered as Conc.227/2012. It was disposed of vide order dt. 28.8.2012. The court passed the following order :- “By filing compliance report, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders dated 23/08/2012 and 27/08/2012 shows that the order passed by this Court stood complied. 1.12.2004 passed in W.P.No.1650/2000. It was registered as Conc.227/2012. It was disposed of vide order dt. 28.8.2012. The court passed the following order :- “By filing compliance report, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders dated 23/08/2012 and 27/08/2012 shows that the order passed by this Court stood complied. Shri Prashant Sharma has not disputed the aforesaid fact. Considering the aforesaid, nothing requires to be done in this contempt petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings for remaining claims/interest etc. Rule nisi discharged. Contempt petition is dismissed.” 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the salary as ordered by the Writ Court was paid to the respondents, however, there was delay in payment, hence, liberty was granted to the respondents to file appropriate proceedings in regard to claim of interest. Then the respondents filed a writ petition before the writ court for interest. Learned writ court vide impugned order has allowed the writ petition and ordered that the respondents are eligible to get interest. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that there was no delay on the part of the government in making the payment in pursuance to the order passed by the writ court. It is further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that against the judgment passed by this court in Dr.Sharique A.Ali Vs. State of M.P. and others, number of SLPs were preferred before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court finally vide order dt. 7.1.2014 disposed of the SLPs. Hence, the writ court has committed an error of law awarding interest. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that there was deliberate delay in making payment to the respondents in pursuance to the order passed by the writ court. Hence, the writ court has rightly awarded the interest because a liberty was granted to the respondents in contempt proceedings to file appropriate proceedings for interest. 8. It is an admitted fact that there was delay in making the payment as observed by the writ court in pursuance to the earlier order passed by the writ court. The court while passing the order dt. 8. It is an admitted fact that there was delay in making the payment as observed by the writ court in pursuance to the earlier order passed by the writ court. The court while passing the order dt. 1.12.2004 has specifically ordered that the action in regard to extending the benefit shall be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and the next direction was that the respondents shall release the grant-in-aid to the Institute in question in accordance with the directives issued in the case of Dr.Sharique A.Ali Vs. State of M.P. as modified by the Supreme Court from time to time. 9. The order makes it clear that there were two directions issued by the court; first direction was to extend the benefit as per the prevailing liability of State Government within a period of six months and the second direction was to release grant-in- aid to the Institute in question. It was in regard to future liability towards payment of salary. For the past liability, the court issued direction to take necessary steps within a period of six months. Admittedly, within such period the steps were not taken by the appellants neither the amount was paid. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the writ court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court quoted in para 6 of the order, has rightly held that the respondents are entitled to get interest on delayed payment of salary. The arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court against the order passed in Dr.Sharique A.Ali Vs. State of M.P., hence, there was delay in making the payment to the respondents could not be accepted as a plausible explanation for not making the payment within time because the second direction was with regard to future liability. With regard to past liability, direction was issued to make payment within a period of six months. 10. Hence, in our opinion, the order passed by the writ court is in accordance with law. Writ court has not specified the rate of interest which the respondents are entitled for delayed payment. In our opinion, looking to the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to fix the rate of interest as 9%. 11. 10. Hence, in our opinion, the order passed by the writ court is in accordance with law. Writ court has not specified the rate of interest which the respondents are entitled for delayed payment. In our opinion, looking to the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to fix the rate of interest as 9%. 11. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of with the observation that in accordance with the order passed by the writ court the respondents shall be eligible to get interest @ 9%. 12. No order as to costs.