Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1974 (RAJ)

MADAN LAL KATTA v. J. C. MOHANTI

2014-12-03

J.K.RANKA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. The dispute raised by the petitioner, pending in this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2515/1991- Madan Lal Katta Vs. State of Rajasthan, was referred by this Court to Mega Lok Adalat. On 17.05.2013, the Members of the Mega Lok Adalat, persuaded the parties, on which following settlement was arrived at between the parties:- “The matter has taken up in the Mega Lok Adalat and advocate for the appellant has stated that the appellant has agreed to forgo all the relief except that of remove pay anamoly vis-a-vis respondent who are junior to him. The learned counsel for the Government Department agrees to the proposal given by the appellant and agrees to follow up action and provide due relief of revising pay and fixation or pension accordingly at par the Junior and thereby remove the said anamoly with difference of arrear may be paid to the appellant. This appeal is disposed off accordingly in the Mega Lok Adalat. Sd. Sd. Sd. 17.5.2013                                                Member                                                 17.05.2013 Member                                                  Lok Adalat                                              Chairman Lok Adalat                                  For Raj. High Court bench                                Lok Adalat For Raj. High Court                                  at Jaipur                                        for Raj. High Court bench at Jaipur                                                                                          bench at Jaipur.” 2. This Civil Contempt Petition was filed on 12.02.2014, for non-compliance of the settlement arrived in Mega Lok Adalat 3. In the reply given to the contempt petition, an order dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure-R/2), was passed by the Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, which has been annexed, by which the claim made by the petitioner was accepted, and that orders were passed revising his pay with effect from 01.02.1980 in the pay scale of Rs. 1070/-, and in the pay scale of Rs.1550/- with effect from 01.02.1985. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is satisfied with the order dated 20.05.2014, passed by the Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in revising his pay scale, and thereby removing the anamoly in pay, which had arisen, as compared to Shri Manak Chand Jain. The order, however, has not been implemented fully. It is submitted that though the order has been passed and given effect to by the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Medical & Health Department, to which the petitioner's services were transferred in the year 1985, and from which the applicant superannuated, has not complied with the order. 5. It is submitted that though the order has been passed and given effect to by the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Medical & Health Department, to which the petitioner's services were transferred in the year 1985, and from which the applicant superannuated, has not complied with the order. 5. The petitioner superannuated in the year 1988, and since thereafter, he is pursuing his remedies for removing anamoly in pay, which, according to the petitioner, had arisen as compared to Shri Manak Chand Jain, in the year 1966. 6. We find that the petitioner had brought to the Court a stale matter, and that the writ petition should have been dismissed at the threshold, on the ground of laches. The writ petition, however, remained pending and was referred to the Mega Lok Adalat. 7. We have our doubts, as to whether a dispute of pay anamoly could be referred for settlement by the Lok Adalat. In any case, the Mega Lok Adalat made sincere efforts, and successfully persuaded the Government department to provide relief to the petitioner. 8. A contempt petition under Section 11/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is not maintainable, to enforce an Award passed in the Lok Adalat, as the Award is basically a settlement, unless an order is passed by the Court giving any directions in the matter. 9. The petitioner has already received the substantial relief, except the period from 1985 to 1988, and the consequential revision of his pension. 10. Be that as it may, in our view the petitioner is pursuing a highly belated claim. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may file a writ petition for enforcement of settlement, subject to satisfaction of the Court regarding limitation. 11. On the aforesaid discussion, this contempt petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies for enforcement of settlement, in accordance with law.