Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 95 (UTT)

DHARMA NAND PANDEY v. RAJNEESH GUPTA

2014-03-20

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 25.03.1991/23.02.1991. Certain payments were made pursuant to the orders granting selection grade to the petitioners and other employees of U.P.S.R.T.C. However, thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.1993, earlier orders granting selection grade were recalled/revoked and payment made to the employees were sought to be recovered. 2. Writ petition No. 9970 of 1993 was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order dated 16th February, 1993. Allahabad High Court vide order /judgment dated 26.10.1993 was pleased to quash the order dated 16.02.1993. Writ Petition No. 3712 (S/S) of 2001 filed by the present contempt applicants was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 22.05.2006 in terms of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 26.10.1993, passed in Writ petition No. 9970 of 1993. Meaning thereby, this Court was also pleased to quash the order dated 16th February, 1993 whereby grant of selection grade was revoked and recovery was sought to be made from the employees. 3. Learned counsel for the contempt applicants submits that since order dated 23.02.1991 and 25.03.1991 stand good as on day in view of the quashing of the order dated 16th February, 1993, therefore, respondents are duty bound to make payment of selection grade which they are not paying. 4. Having carefully perused the order passed by this Court dated 22.05.2006 as well as order dated 26.10.1993, passed by the Allahabad High Court, I find that only question involved in both the writ petitions was as to whether order granting selection grade was rightly recalled and recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner should be permitted. Allahabad High Court as well as Coordinate Bench of this Court were pleased to quash the order dated 16th February, 1993 whereby order of granting selection grade was recalled and recovery was sought to be made. 5. This is no more res integra that contempt court can neither add something in the order/judgment nor can delete anything from the order/judgment. Contempt Court has to see as to whether order/judgment passed has been violated deliberately. In both the cases, there was absolutely no mandamus to the authorities to keep on paying selection grade nor such relief was ever sought nor granted. 6. Contempt Court has to see as to whether order/judgment passed has been violated deliberately. In both the cases, there was absolutely no mandamus to the authorities to keep on paying selection grade nor such relief was ever sought nor granted. 6. Although argument of the learned counsel for the contempt applicant seems to be attractive that after the quashing of the order dated 16th February, 1993, department was duty bound to make payment of selection grade, however, if same is not being paid to the petitioners, petitioners can approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, this is not case of deliberate disobedience of judgment of this Court. 7. Therefore, contempt notices are discharged. Contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the contempt applicants to approach appropriate forum seeking direction to the respondents to make payment of selection grade in terms of order dated 25.03.1991/23.02.1991.