Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 197 (CHH)

K. M. Sharma v. M. K. Raut

2014-05-05

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER By way of the instant contempt petition the applicants have prayed for initiating the contempt proceeding against the respondents for alleged willful non-compliance of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in W. P. (S) 6670/2007. 2. Counsel for the applicants submits that the State Govt. has not implemented the said order passed by this Hon'ble Court by which the State Govt. was directed to examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (for short “the Rules 1998”). 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submit that the State Govt. has already complied with the order dated 23.01.2013 and after examining the case of the applicants vide its order dated 27.12.2013 issued an order holding that the case of the applicants has been considered and they were found to be paid properly. It was also ordered that the applicants would not be entitled for the regular pay-scale and pension as has been paid to the Govt. employees. 4. If we see the operative part of the impugned order which is reproduced herein under: “9. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the position is not clear as the State Government had chosen not to participate in the proceedings. Thus, it cannot be properly adjudicated asto whether the pay scale prescribed by the State Government by order dated 24.06.2007, has been made applicable. 10. In view the above, the State Government is directed to examine the issue and ensure that the petitioners are paid proper pay scale, as prescribed by the State Government under the provisions of the Rules, 1998, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months.” it would clearly reflect that the Court was also not very clear as to the entitlement of the petitioners and therefore the Court disposed of the writ petition with direction that the case of the petitioners shall be examined by the State Govt. and after examination, the State would ensure that the petitioners are paid proper pay scale keeping in view the Rules of 1998. 5. A plain reading of the order of the writ Court itself would show that the Writ Court has not decided the issue in favour of the petitioners nor has decided their entitlement in respect of the pay-scale. 6. The order of the State Govt. 5. A plain reading of the order of the writ Court itself would show that the Writ Court has not decided the issue in favour of the petitioners nor has decided their entitlement in respect of the pay-scale. 6. The order of the State Govt. (Annexure R-1) dated 27.12.2013 enclosed along with the reply filed by respondents 1, 3 & 4 would show that the State Govt. has considered the issue and passed an order in compliance of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6670/2007. Rightly or wrongly, once when the State Govt. has passed an order towards compliance of the judgment passed by this Court, for all practical purpose the judgment stands complied with. The order so passed would become a fresh cause of action and it also amounts to compliance of the Court order. As the said order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the State Govt. by itself becomes a fresh cause of action which can be challenged by the petitioners and therefore their grievance in respect of rejection of their entitlement of pay-scale and denial of the pensionary benefits cannot be adjudicated in the present contempt petition. 7. So far as the willful non-compliance of the order dated 23.01.2013 is concerned, admittedly there is an order passed by the State Govt. in respect of the applicants. In compliance of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in the Writ Petition, rightly or wrongly the State Govt. has passed an order and therefore it cannot be said that there is a total willful non-compliance on the part of the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The applicants would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the State through an appropriate writ petition if they so desire. 10. I.A. No.01, application for urgent hearing also stands disposed of. 11. As a consequence of the dismissal of the contempt petition, the respondents contemnors are discharged from the contempt proceedings.