Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 55 (MP)

Satish Chandra Bhargava v. Punkhraj Maru

2014-01-09

RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment Rajendra Menon, J. These contempt applications have been listed today for passing appropriates order in the light of the findings recorded by us with regard to contempt already committed by the respondents, vide order dated 02-07-2013 in the matter of implementing the directions issued by this court in the writ petitions and the writ appeals. All these cases pertain to grant of pay scale to the persons like the present applicants, who are Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and as directions issued by the writ court, writ appellate courts and the Supreme Court in special leave petition filed by the State Government were not complied with and as the appropriate pay scale was not granted, we held respondents guilty for contempt and thereafter directed them to show cause as to why they should not be punished. During the pendency of these applications from the last 6 months, it is reported that in two of the cases, a coordinate Bench of this court imposed punishment of fine of Rs.2000/- upon the respondents and disposed of the matter after it was found that the respondents have complied with the order passed. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the detailed counter affidavit of the respondents filed on 21-11-13 to say that after order was passed by us on 02-07-13, necessary implementation have been done and various orders have been passed granting pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 01-01-1996 and revision of pay scale from various dates. After these affidavits were filed the respondents were directed to give their say in the matter and in Contempt Case No.1623/2012 Shri Sachin Kumar Vijayvargiya has filed a counter affidavit dated 14-12-2013 and points out that the directions issued in the writ petition were that the benefit as has been granted to Satish Shrivastava, one of the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation is to be granted but all the benefits at par with Satish Shrivastava, have not been. It is pointed out that in the case of Satish Shrivastava his pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs.16,750-20500/- w.e.f. 1-1-96 whereas in the cases of the present petitioners this pay scale w.e.f.1-1-96 is not granted. It is pointed out that in the case of Satish Shrivastava his pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs.16,750-20500/- w.e.f. 1-1-96 whereas in the cases of the present petitioners this pay scale w.e.f.1-1-96 is not granted. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents explains the position by saying that the pay scale of Civil Judge is made applicable to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and as this pay scale is granted, no further benefit is to be granted. If the original order passed in the case of Satish Shrivastava(supra) i.e. W.P.No.5446/2005 is taken note of, it would be seen that in the said case, there is a specific direction in para-8 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner therein, namely, Shri Satish Shrivastava, is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.16750-2055 w.e.f. 01-01-1996. When the matter was taken up in appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Naya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by a Division Bench in W.A.No.249/2008, (Satish Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and another), the Division Bench again went into the question and in para-13 of the order passed, the learned Division Bench has held after taking note of statutory rules that a member Judge of the Industrial Court is entitled to the same pay scale as that of District Judge and the members of the lower labour judiciary to the pay scale equivalent to that of Civil Judge. This finding recorded by the Division Bench in para-13 clearly shows that in the matter of granting parity of pay scale, a Member Judge of the Industrial Court is kept at par with District Judge and the member of the lower labour judiciary namely persons like the present petitioners i.e. Presiding Officer of Labour Court are kept at par with the Civil Judges. Thereafter when the question was again considered by another Division Bench in W.A.No.784/2009 (Raghvendra Nath Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and another), all these aspects were again considered and finally in para-7, the direction issued by the Division Bench reads as under: “7. Thereafter when the question was again considered by another Division Bench in W.A.No.784/2009 (Raghvendra Nath Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and another), all these aspects were again considered and finally in para-7, the direction issued by the Division Bench reads as under: “7. However, before parting we would like to further mention that when the Division Bench of this court has already taken a view that the Presiding Officers and member judge of Industrial Court are entitled to the same pay scale as that of a District Judge and the members of the lower labour judiciary are entitled to the pay scale equivalent to that of a Civil Judge then the same should be taken note of by the respondents for conferral of the benefit to the officers belonging to the labour judiciary so that they are not forced to approach the courts for their rights which has already been adjudicated upon by this court.” (Emphasis supplied) From the aforesaid directions issued by the Division Bench, it is clear that in the matter of granting parity to members of the labour judiciary Member Judge of the Industrial Court is kept at par with a District Judge and the member of the Lower Labour judiciary is treated equivalent to Civil Judge. That being so, the contention of Shri Vijay Tripathi to the effect that all the petitioners herein should be granted pay in the scale of Rs.16750-20500 w.e.f.1-1-96 cannot be accept for the following two reasons: (a) In the order passed by the Division Bench in the cases as referred to hereinabove, even though originally in the writ petition pertaining to Shri Satish Shrivastava, the learned Single Judge has directed that Satish Shrivastavas should be granted pay in the scale Rs.16750-20500 w.e.f. 01-01-1996 i.e. the entry level pay of a District Judge but in the writ appeal the question has been clarified by the Division Bench and the direction is to give pay scale to the labour judges equivalent to that of the civil judges. (b) That apart as far as the present petitioners are concerned, most of them have not filed any writ petition and there is no specific directions in their cases but it is in the case of Raghvendra Nath Shukla(supra) the Division Bench has held that members of the lower judiciary should be granted the benefit. (b) That apart as far as the present petitioners are concerned, most of them have not filed any writ petition and there is no specific directions in their cases but it is in the case of Raghvendra Nath Shukla(supra) the Division Bench has held that members of the lower judiciary should be granted the benefit. In the pay scale implemented all the members of the judiciary service in the State of M.P. after Shetty Pay Commission recommendation was accepted on 01-01-1996, the pay scale of Civil Judges (Entry Level) as on 01-01-1996 was fixed at Rs.9000-14450/- and thereafter different grades have been fixed for different categories of civil judges. Similarly the pay scale of the members of the higher judiciary (Entry Level) have already been fixed in different grades i.e. Entry Level District Judge, at the pay scale of Rs.16750-20500 and thereafter higher pay scale is fixed for the members of the selection grade and the super time scale. In the present case, as far as present petitioners are concerned w.e.f. 01-01-1996, the pay of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been fixed at par with entry level pay scale applicable to the Civil Judge . That being so as the pay scale claimed at par with Satish Shrivastava is that which is payable to District Judge (entry level) and when the direction in the writ was to treat the Labour judge at par with Civil Judge, it is not appropriate to hold respondents guilty of not complying with the directions issued by this court . Prima facie the counter affidavit now filed by the respondents showing pay fixation of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at par with that of Civil Judge working in the state judiciary service seems to be correct. If the petitioners have any grievance, now in these contempt proceedings with regard to the grant of appropriate pay scale, no further directions can be issued . Once the respondents have shown that they have fixed the pay of the petitioners as on 01-01-1996 at par with Civil Judge (entry level) of the state judiciary, we are satisfied that now after the orders were passed on 02-07-2013, the respondents have issued necessary orders complying with the directions issued by this court. Once the respondents have shown that they have fixed the pay of the petitioners as on 01-01-1996 at par with Civil Judge (entry level) of the state judiciary, we are satisfied that now after the orders were passed on 02-07-2013, the respondents have issued necessary orders complying with the directions issued by this court. Further claim made by the petitioners through their counter affidavits claiming scale of Rs.16750-20500 w.e.f. 01-01-1996 is question requires consideration and adjudicate upon, which cannot made in these proceedings. So far as complying with the directions of this court are concerned, we are satisfied that it has been complied with even though after some delay and directions issued by us on on 02-07-13 punishing the petitioner. Having held so now the only question is as to what punishment should be imposed on the petitioners, once it is clear that they have not implemented the order or directions issued by this court properly at the very first instance. It can be taken note of the fact that both the non-applicants herein were proceeded against for the same cause in more than 7 or 8 contempt proceedings and it is reported to this court that in all the cases, passed orders of punishment on 02-07-13. In about two of the cases they have been punished by imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- by a Coordinate Bench of this court and would to be careful in future. The respondents have filed their affidavits, and as far as respondent no.1 is concerned, he has indicated various reasons to say that it was the office of the respondent no.2, which is responsible for taking decision. Respondent no.2 has also given certain reasons for the delay and has submitted unconditional apology. Taking all these factors and considering the fact that in the similar set of breach already committed, the respondents have already been punished by this court by imposing of fine of Rs.2000/-. Now once they have complied with directions issued and by appearing before this court during the course of one hearing had expressed they unconditional apology, interest of justice requires that a lenient view should be taken instead of imposition of any harsh punishment. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to issue warning to the respondents to be careful in future and to ensure that the orders passed by the court are implemented in reasonable time. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to issue warning to the respondents to be careful in future and to ensure that the orders passed by the court are implemented in reasonable time. For the present by issuing strong warning to the respondents as indicated hereinabove, we dispose of all the contempt applications.