Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 973 (RAJ)

Narendra Kumar Chobdar v. Ashok Sampatram

2014-04-21

P.K.LOHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT : - In all these contempt petitions, the petitioners are working as Lecturers, Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) and Librarians under various Government Sanskrit Colleges. While working in the capacity of Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians in Govt. Colleges, the petitioners were apprised that Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians working in other colleges have been allowed higher pay-scales, whereas the Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians working with the Govt. Sanskrit Colleges have been singled out. On inquiry, it was also revealed to the petitioners that the State Government had no occasion to keep this anomaly in the pay-scales of Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians of Govt. Colleges for the reason that the said controversy is no more resintegra and has already been set at rest by many pronouncements of this Court. Thus, feeling disgruntled with the inaction on the part of the State Government, the petitioners laid separate writ petitions before this Court seeking redressal of their grievances. As the issue involved in all these contempt petitions is founded on identical facts and the verdicts in respect of which complaint is made for noncompliance are decided while relying on earlier judgments on the subject matter, therefore, for convenience, pleadings of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9629/2010, which is accompanying with S.B. Misc. Contempt Petition No.205/2011, is referred hereinafter. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for under mentioned reliefs: It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction : (i) The respondents may be directed to give the petitioners the pay-scales as that of Librarians and PTIs, Ordinary Scale, Senior Scale and Selection Scale, as the case may be, with effect from the date when the same was made available to the Librarians and PTIs working in the Government Colleges, i.e. from 1988 and thereafter from 01.01.1996 and keep on (ii) the respondents may be further directed to pay the arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum till actual payment is made; paying as and when the pay-scales of Librarians and PTIs are revised of Government Colleges; (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioners may also kindly be granted with costs in the interest of justice. For claiming the reliefs (supra), the petitioners have specifically pleaded in the abovementioned writ petition that in the year 1982, a writ petition was filed in the name of Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers' Association and others V/s State of Rajasthan, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.608/1982. The said writ petition was decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8th October, 1990. Against the said verdict of the learned Single Judge, an intracourt appeal was preferred by the State Government, which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.119/1991, but during the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan conceded before the Division Bench that the verdict of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented. Upon this statement of the learned AAG, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thus, according to the petitioners, the controversy was no more resintegra, but the State Government on one pretext or the other made an attempt not to confer those benefits on some of the employees of the Sanskrit Education and in that situation another writ petition was filed in the name of Laxmi Narain Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors., at Jaipur Bench of this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6324/1998. The said writ petition also had the same fate and was decided on 30th October, 2001, in terms of the earlier verdict of the learned Single Judge dated 8th October, 1990. In the said verdict, the learned Single Judge made strong observations while taking cognizance of the total apathy of the State and its officials. Although, there was no occasion for the State Government to assail the verdict of the learned Single Judge in Laxmi Narain Sharma's case, but yet again an attempt to challenge the same was made before the Division Bench by way of intracourt appeal, which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.486/2002, but the same was also dismissed. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the State Government preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that too was dismissed on merits after condoning the delay. With these pleadings, the respondents have prayed for the desired reliefs. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the State Government preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that too was dismissed on merits after condoning the delay. With these pleadings, the respondents have prayed for the desired reliefs. The writ petition (SBCW No.9629/2010) was contested by the respondents and when the writ petition came up for final hearing on 18.01.2011, the Court was pleased to allow the writ petition with the following directions: In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that both these writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are allowed with the following direction that the respondents are directed to implement the above judgments in their letters and spirit and provide the same relief and treatment to the present petitioners working on the posts of Librarians, P.T.I., Lecturers and Professors in the Government Sanskrit Colleges in the State of Rajasthan and grant all benefits of pay scales as directed by this Court in the above judgments, within the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Court. In the contempt petition, besides seeking compliance of the directions issued by the Court, the petitioners have also prayed for punishing the respondents for blatant contempt of the Court. After issuance of the notice, reply to the contempt petition is submitted on behalf of the respondents. Along with the reply, a letter dated 20th May, 2011 was submitted, whereby financial sanction was granted for implementation of the verdict. Subsequent to that, order dated 27th June, 2011 was passed for facilitating requisite payment to the petitioners. In the reply, the respondents have made an attempt to project that the verdict of the Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit. Feeling dissatisfied with the so-called compliance, on behalf of the petitioners, an additional affidavit of one Mr. Rewatram was submitted. In the additional affidavit, it was categorically averred that grant of senior and selection scale cannot be withheld on account of pendency of orientation/refresher course. In response to the additional affidavit of the petitioner, a reply affidavit of Shri Mandan Sharma (respondent) was submitted and it was clarified that requirement of orientation/refresher course vis-a-vis PTIs and Librarians is inconsequential. Reply affidavit also contained some relaxation for Lecturers/Readers in this behalf for availing promotion in the next higher cadre i.e. Readers and Professors respectively. In response to the additional affidavit of the petitioner, a reply affidavit of Shri Mandan Sharma (respondent) was submitted and it was clarified that requirement of orientation/refresher course vis-a-vis PTIs and Librarians is inconsequential. Reply affidavit also contained some relaxation for Lecturers/Readers in this behalf for availing promotion in the next higher cadre i.e. Readers and Professors respectively. Relevant paras 4 & 5 read as under: 4. That the contents of para no.4 of the affidavit are not admitted in the manner they have been stated and hence, the same are denied. It is wrong to say that in the reply, defence has been taken that the judgment cannot be complied with. In fact, passing of the orientation/refresher course is in respect of the Lecturers and not in respect of the PTI and Librarian and hence, this reference is inconsequential. 5. That the contents of para no.4 of the affidavit are not admitted in the manner they have been stated and hence, the same are denied. As said above, the point No.7 of the guidelines of the UGC is not in respect of the PTI and Librarians. It is further submitted that the relaxation has been provided for doing the orientation/refresher course in the promotion from the post of Lecturer of Reader and further from the post of Reader to the post of Professor. Yet another affidavit was submitted on behalf of the petitioners reiterating the earlier stand. In the additional affidavit, a letter dated 14.04.2010 addressed to Registrars of various Universities by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education was also placed on record, whereby the participation in orientation/refresher course was extended beyond 30th June, 2009. In the additional affidavit, the petitioners have stated that the respondents contemnors despite having knowledge about the said letter are making affirmative attempt to frustrate the cause of the petitioners to receive requisite monetary benefits. Thereafter, the compliance report was submitted on behalf of the respondents showing compliance of the order passed by this Court. The order passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education dated 01.08.2012 was also placed on record. Thereafter, the compliance report was submitted on behalf of the respondents showing compliance of the order passed by this Court. The order passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education dated 01.08.2012 was also placed on record. Once again compliance report was submitted on 8th January, 2013 in adherence of the order passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2013, wherein it was indicated that vide order dated 2nd July, 2011 the benefits of pay-scale of Rs.1560039100 with AGP of Rs.6,000/has been granted to five Librarians and 16 PTIs from 4th October, 2010, i.e., from the date of filing of the petition. Despite the compliance report, the grievance of the petitioners subsisted and when the said fact was apprised to the Court, the Court took serious note of the same and proceeded to issue direction to the first respondent contemnor to remain present in person. On this observation of the Court, the Additional Advocate General made a request for allowing him last opportunity to make compliance of the verdict in its letter and spirit. However, it appears that the stalemate continued and thereupon on 17th September, 2013, the learned Additional Advocate General very candidly submitted before the Court that directions issued by this Court on 18th January 2011 shall be complied with and the benefits accrued to the petitioners shall be granted from the date of initial appointment. Although the learned Additional Advocate General has made a categorical statement to allow benefits to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, but till date the compliance has not been made is the main cause of grievance to all the petitioners. Despite undertaking given by the Additional Advocate General to grant benefits to all the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, the respondents by their additional affidavit dated 13th March, 2014 have made an attempt to eschew the said undertaking and place on record the copies of the orders dated 14.11.2013 and 18.11.2013 respectively. By these orders actual benefits have been granted to all the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition and notional benefits have been granted, w.e.f., an anterior date i.e. 01.01.2006. So far as Lecturers are concerned, the compliance report of order dated 14.11.2013 was placed on record indicating grant of senior and selection scales to them with actual monetary benefits from the date of institution of the writ petitions and notional benefits from anterior dates. So far as Lecturers are concerned, the compliance report of order dated 14.11.2013 was placed on record indicating grant of senior and selection scales to them with actual monetary benefits from the date of institution of the writ petitions and notional benefits from anterior dates. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, has vehemently argued that the respondents are guilty of committing gross contempt of this Court by not implementing the verdict dated 18th January, 2011 in its letter and spirit. Mr. Singhvi would contend that issue relating to grant of equal pay for equal work to employees of Sanskrit Colleges at par with general colleges was set at rest in the year 1991 itself, when the judgment in Kalicharan Bhattacharya’s case was passed by the learned Single Judge, which was subsequently reiterated in many other verdicts of this Court. While inviting attention to the operative part of the order dated 18th January, 2011, Mr. Singhvi submits that the learned Single Judge has issued a positive direction to implement the verdict as given in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya V/s. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.444/1988 and all other subsequent judgments in letter and spirit. But the respondents, at their whims and fancies, have extended the actual benefits to the petitioners from the date of institution of the writ petition and notional benefits from the year 2006. Mr. Singhvi, while elaborating his contention in this behalf, has also placed heavy reliance on the verdict of Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers Association's case (supra), which was decided on 8th October 1990, whereby a declaratory verdict was given that PTIs and Librarians working under various Government and Non Government aided colleges affiliated to universities are entitled for up-gradation of pay w.e.f. 01.04.1980. Therefore, according to the submission of Mr. Singhvi, when the controversy was set at rest in the year 1990 and 1991 respectively, the employees of Sanskrit Education are entitled for pay-scales and other monetary benefits at par with the other employees of the College Education. Therefore, how and in what manner, the respondents have acted to the detriment of the petitioners is a cause of grave concern and this virtually amounts to disobeying and circumventing the verdict of this Court. Therefore, how and in what manner, the respondents have acted to the detriment of the petitioners is a cause of grave concern and this virtually amounts to disobeying and circumventing the verdict of this Court. Taking serious exception to the stubborn attitude of the respondents, learned counsel would urge that this sort of defiant posture of the respondents is a glaring example of the redtapism and bureaucratic way of functioning, which has been deprecated by this Court, while deciding SBCW No.6324/1998 – Laxmi Narain Sharma & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan. Laying emphasis on the caustic remarks made by the Court against the Government officials in this verdict, Mr. Singhvi submits that the present case is yet another example of depicting wholly pedantic approach of the respondents to deprive the petitioners from just monetary benefits for which they are legally entitled in terms of the verdict. To sum up his contentions, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Singhvi, has urged that the co-called compliance of the verdict by the respondents is nothing, but an eyewash and this contumacious act of the respondents is clear and writ large warranting serious action against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’). Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing in case of contempt petitions laid on behalf of lecturers of Sanskrit Education, has adopted the arguments canvassed by Senior Advocate, Mr. Singhvi. Mr. Joshi would contend that when the issue relating to grant of requisite payscale to the lecturers was settled long back, there was no justifiable reason for the respondents to deny actual benefits to the petitioners for grant of senior scale and selection scale by reckoning their services from the date of initial appointment. With these submissions, Mr. Joshi has articulated his arguments and prayed for taking appropriate action for Contempt of Court against the respondents and issuing requisite directions for compliance of the directions forthwith. Per contra, Mr. With these submissions, Mr. Joshi has articulated his arguments and prayed for taking appropriate action for Contempt of Court against the respondents and issuing requisite directions for compliance of the directions forthwith. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, would contend that the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition, has simply issued a direction to the respondents to implement the judgments in letter and spirit rendered in Kalicharan, Laxmi Narain and Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers’ Association for granting reliefs to the petitioners in relation to their wage structure, payscale and other monetary benefits at par with their other counterparts working with the College Education. Mr. Panwar would contend that the directions issued by this Court are clear and unambiguous, wherein no affirmative direction was incorporated to grant benefits to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, and therefore, the respondents have rightly allowed actual monetary benefits to the petitioners from the date of filing of the writ petition in terms of Kalicharan's case (supra). Mr. Panwar with these submissions has urged that no case for deliberate disobedience against the respondents is made out warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional General, while referring to additional affidavit dated 13th March, 2014 tendered by the respondent contemnor, Mandan Sharma, has urged that the compliance of the verdict in letter and spirit is clear and explicit from order Annex.R/9 and further order Annex.R/11 dated 14.11.2013, wherein the benefits were extended to other Lecturers of Sanskrit Education in terms of judgment from the date of filing of the petition. Further elaborating his submission in this behalf, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the said compliance was treated as sufficient compliance by the Jaipur Bench of this Court, while dismissing the contempt petitions, notices have been discharged. Therefore, according to Mr. Panwar, in these cases, no further action is warranted against the respondents contemnors and there is no semblance of proof that there is deliberate and wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementation of the verdict. Mr. Therefore, according to Mr. Panwar, in these cases, no further action is warranted against the respondents contemnors and there is no semblance of proof that there is deliberate and wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementation of the verdict. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, has strenuously urged that in case of civil contempt essential ingredient is wilful disobedience and wilful connotes “purposefulness” and “clear intention to flout” and, as such, in absence of deliberate conscious disregard of the order of this Court, no case for civil contempt is made out warranting action against the erring individuals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record, and have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar. The issue, which is bone of contention in these contempt petitions, is grant of payscales to the petitioners as Lecturers, Librarians and PTIs in ordinary scale, senior scale and selection scale at par with their other counterparts working with the Govt. colleges. The grievance of the petitioners in the contempt petitions relates to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. For appreciating the rival contentions as to whether the acts and omissions attributed to the respondents by the petitioners fall within the ambit of civil contempt, it has become imperative for this Court to construe the true purport of the directions issued in the verdict. The operative portion quoted hereinabove refers to earlier verdicts on the subject matter, therefore, I deem it just and appropriate to examine the directions issued in the earlier verdicts pertaining to subject matter in issue from time to time. The first judgment on the point is Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers’ Association & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ No.608/1982 – decided on 08.10.1990). In this verdict, the learned Single Judge of this Court, while examining the prayer of the petitioners to upgrade their pay-scales at par with their other counterparts working in the university and various government and non-government colleges affiliated to university as per UGC pay-scales, held as under : I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. It is really very strange that the Government has taken the plea that the writ petition should be dismissed because the Union of India and the University Grants Commission have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. It is really very strange that the Government has taken the plea that the writ petition should be dismissed because the Union of India and the University Grants Commission have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. The member of the petitioner Union/Association are employees of the State Govt. and they are governed by the Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. U.G.C. Is only a recommendatory body and the Government of Rajasthan, has, in principle, accepted the recommendations of the U.G.C. and has not opposed the same even in its reply to the writ petition. Union of India has also agreed to pay 80% grant on this count. It is really not understandable as to where is the hitch, except absence of a strong will and tactics of delaying the rightful claim and payment to the teachers, which is most unfair. In part-'B' of the Report of the Committee on the revision of pay scales of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education in Universities and Colleges, published by the University Grants Commission, it has very specifically been mentioned that the Ministry of Education, Government of India has accepted the revised scales of pay for Librarians and Directors of Physical Education w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and some of the States, in pursuance of that decision, have already implemented the revised scales of pay. Again in 1982, Government of India agreed to upgrade the pay scales of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, to bring them at par with the teachers and upgrade the scales of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1980, as per the formula given in Appendix-II (Anx.3) of the Report and it has been specifically mentioned that the State of Rajasthan has also implemented these scales. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement mentioned in the report. The State of Rajasthan is also not opposing the request Government has not made any such declaration to this effect and that is why the teachers are not getting the upgraded/revised scales of pay. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement mentioned in the report. The State of Rajasthan is also not opposing the request Government has not made any such declaration to this effect and that is why the teachers are not getting the upgraded/revised scales of pay. The writ petition has itself been pending for last more than eight years and still the Government has not been able to make a declaration and this is how the litigation increases and extra burden is put on the High Court, when the reasonable demand and request is not acceded to by the Government within a reasonable time, in spite of agreement in principle. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the Directors of Physical Education /Librarians/Physical Education Instructors working in the Universities and various government and non government aided colleges affiliated to the University are entitled to the upgraded scales of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1980. It is further directed that the State Government should make payment of the arrears within six months from today positively. No order as to costs. In Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case (supra), the coordinate Bench has precisely examined the grievance of the Lecturers working in the Sanskrit Colleges for grant of pay-scales equivalent to the pay-scales of Lecturers teaching in the faculty of Arts on the anvil of doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The Court, while fully concurring with the grievances of the petitioner, held as under: In general Colleges, Sanskrit is one of the subjects with other subjects. Sanskrit is a compulsory subject with other subjects, like optional subjects – Hindi, History, Economics, Political Science etc. I am of the view that to treat the Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges on different footing than the Lecturers of other Colleges and not to give them equal pay scales is against the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the result, the writ petition is accepted. State Government is directed to pay equal pay like other Lecturers of general Colleges to the Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e., 6.2.88 with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. In the result, the writ petition is accepted. State Government is directed to pay equal pay like other Lecturers of general Colleges to the Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e., 6.2.88 with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. Despite these two verdicts, which attained finality, the grievances of some of the librarians of some of Government colleges remain unabated, and therefore, in case of Laxmi Narain Sharma, a joint writ petition was filed by 15 incumbents for redressal of their grievances. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while taking strong exception to the stubborn and recalcitrant attitude of the respondents, castigated the respondents for their total callousness and pedantic approach and made following observations: The whole approach of the respondents in this matter is not befitting to the officers of the welfare State. After this decision in fact, the respondents should have voluntarily extended the benefit of this upgraded pay scale to all the existing Librarians but the same had not been done. On the contrary, the respondents compelled the petitioners to approach this Court. The State of Rajasthan is the biggest litigants in the Courts. It is not unknown to the State of Rajasthan that there is a heavy workloads in the Court. The officers of the State of Rajasthan is to make all endeavor to see that the unnecessary litigation may not come before this Court. In my opinion, from this approach if the matter would have been examined by the respondents certainly. I am confident that this litigation would not have come to this Court. In fact, the Officers of the State thrusted this litigation upon the petitioners. The Litigation before the Courts is not luxury or amusement or entertainment. It heavily costs to the litigants. Only when the litigants are unable to get justice and due claims from the State of Rajasthan they are constrained to come to the Court. It is not a luxury litigation. The pay scales are being revised or upgraded by the UGC or the Government for the obvious reasons so the employees may get the sufficient emoluments to meet out, fulfil and discharge their obligations. In such matters, the approach of the Officers of the State of Rajasthan should have been justice oriented and not pendentic. The pay scales are being revised or upgraded by the UGC or the Government for the obvious reasons so the employees may get the sufficient emoluments to meet out, fulfil and discharge their obligations. In such matters, the approach of the Officers of the State of Rajasthan should have been justice oriented and not pendentic. The Court has also clarified in clear and unequivocal terms that judgment rendered earlier by this Court on 8th October, 1990 in Rajasthan University's case (supra) is a declaratory judgment and the fruits flowing from the judgment is to be extended to all the employees of Sanskrit Education. The Court ultimately held as under: “This Court has already decided identical matter but the benefits of the same are not given to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court dated 8.10.1990 is not given in an individual case. It is a declaratory judgment and the benefits of which are to be extended to all the existing Librarians and the Physical Education Teachers’ working in the University and also in various Government Colleges or in the added Colleges affiliated to the Universities w.e.f. 01.04.1980. Despite of this declaratory judgment, the respondent State of Rajasthan has not given same benefit to the petitioners. This declaratory judgment had attained the finality and the benefits thereof were not restricted to existing Librarians subject to any condition but by passing the order (AnnexureR1) the benefits of the same have been made subject to certain terms and conditions. It may be a case of committing the contempt of Court order. It is a different matter that no such process has been initiated so far this modification or alterations of the judgment of this Court by the respondents at their own” Upon thrashing out the matters in entirety, more particularly, the verdict in Rajasthan University and College Physical Education and Teachers' Association's case (supra) and Laxmi Narain Sharma's case (supra), which are referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge with a clear direction to make compliance of these verdicts in letter and spirit, there remains no room of doubt that the writ court has granted relief to the petitioners while relying on the earlier declaratory verdict. From the recitals contained in both these judgments, more particularly, the operative portions, it is crystal clear that entitlement of the petitioners for the benefits of pay-scales and grant of senior and selection scales is required to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of filing of the writ petitions as urged by the respondents. Taking cognizance of order dated 29th May, 2013 passed by the respondents vis-a-vis various petitioners (Lecturers) in S.B. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.204/2011, the coordinate Bench of this Court expressed during the course of hearing in clear and unequivocal terms that compliance by the State Government is not in its full letter and spirit. When the Court was about to direct personal appearance of the first respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General assured the Court that last opportunity be granted for making compliance of the directions of the Court for facilitating grant of benefits to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. On this assurance of the learned Additional Advocate General, the matter was deferred for four weeks awaiting compliance of the verdict. The complete text of the order dated 17.09.2013 reads as under: On 16.7.2013, during the hearing of S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.204/2011, Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General informed this Court that an order dated 29.5.2013 has been passed by the State Government and as per the said order, the compliance of the directions given by this Court has been made and he prayed for some time for producing the copy of the order dated 29.5.2013 along with additional affidavit before this Court. The order dated 29.5.2013 and the proceedings of the Screening Committee are produced on record along with additional affidavit on 29.7.2013 by Mr. Anand Purohit, Addl. Advocate General. However, after going through the same, this Court is of the opinion that by passing the said order dated 29.5.2013, the State Government has not complied with the directions given by this Court in the impugned judgment dated 18.1.2011 in its full letter and spirit. When this Court proposed to direct the respondent No.1 to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing, Mr. When this Court proposed to direct the respondent No.1 to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing, Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Additional Advocate General assured this Court that last opportunity may be granted to comply with the directions given by this Court in judgment dated 18.1.2011 and also assured that the benefits will be granted to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. In view of the request made by Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Additional Advocate General, last opportunity of four weeks is granted to the respondent-contemnors to comply with the directions given by this Court in its full letter and spirit. Put up after four weeks as prayed. In this connection almost identical observations were made by the coordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.205/2011 in its order dated 18th September, 2013. The order dated 18th September, 2013 reads as under: On 16.7.2013, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Purohit, Addl. Advocate General sought a short adjournment for submitting compliance report before this Court and has assured that the judgment passed by this Court would be complied with in its letter and spirit by granting selection scale and revision of the pay scale to the petitioners as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 18.01.2011. The next date in the matter was fixed as 19.8.2013. Till date, no compliance report has been furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General in pursuance of the order dated 16.7.2013. This Court has proposed to direct the respondent No.1 to remain present in the Court on next date of hearing, however, at this juncture, Mr. Pradhuman Singh has made a request on behalf of Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General for granting last opportunity for making compliance of the order dated 18.01.2013 in its letter and spirit. At the request made on behalf of Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General, last opportunity is granted to the respondents to comply with the directions given by this Court in the judgment dated 18.1.2013 in its full letter and spirit, failing which the respondent No.1 shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. Put up after four weeks as prayed along with SB Civil Writ Contempt Petition Nos.204/2011, 124/2013 and 508/2013. Put up after four weeks as prayed along with SB Civil Writ Contempt Petition Nos.204/2011, 124/2013 and 508/2013. It is really strange that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has directed the respondents to grant reliefs to the petitioners in terms of earlier verdicts which were declaratory in nature and having realized that the petitioners are entitled for actual benefits in their wage structure at par with their other counterparts of the Govt. Colleges including senior scale and selection scale the Additional Advocate General has also assured the Court in this behalf then how and in what manner the respondents have granted actual pecuniary benefits to the petitioners from the date of institution of the writ petitions subject to notional benefits from anterior dates. I am really aghast that when the law officer of the Government, Additional Advocate General, has assured the Court to allow benefits to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, how this commitment/assurance of the learned AAG can be underplayed or eschewed by the respondents-contemnors at their whims without realizing its implication. An assurance by the Additional Advocate General before the Court presupposes that the said statement was made on behalf of the State officials including the respondents-contemnors. Despite availing many opportunities, the respondents-contemnors have neither shown remorse, nor genuine repentance for resiling from the assurance of the Additional Advocate General. Furthermore, even in the latest counter affidavit, which was tendered by the respondent-contemnor, Mandan Sharma, in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.204/2011 while referring the judgments in Kali Charan and Rajendra Prasad Mishra's cases, the respondents have reiterated that the petitioners are entitled for actual benefits from the date of institution of the writ petitions and notional benefits from anterior dates. This sort of conduct of the respondents-contemnors has made me to believe that their omissions and commissions are perse contumacious. It may be observed here that in S.B. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.205/2011, the respondents-contemnors have clarified in their affidavit dated 6th of September, 2011, recitals of which are quoted supra, that passing of orientation/refresher courses are inconsequential visavis PTIs and Librarians, the order (Annex.R/9) dated 1.11.2013 incorporates the condition of refresher course in relation to PTIs and Librarians for grant of senior/selection scale. Contempt Petition No.205/2011, the respondents-contemnors have clarified in their affidavit dated 6th of September, 2011, recitals of which are quoted supra, that passing of orientation/refresher courses are inconsequential visavis PTIs and Librarians, the order (Annex.R/9) dated 1.11.2013 incorporates the condition of refresher course in relation to PTIs and Librarians for grant of senior/selection scale. The footnote of the order dated 1.11.2013 reads as under: ^^lhfu;j@lysD’ku Ldsy gsrq funsZ’k gS fd fnukad 12-11-2013 rd fd, x;s fjÝs’kj dkslZ@fj;sUVs’kUl dkslZ ds izek.k i=ks dks vko’;d :i ls mfpr ek/;e ls foHkkx dks miyC/k djkos ftlls LØhfuax dh dk;Zokgh ‘kh?zk lEikfnr dh tk ldsA^^ This sort of callous and apathetic attitude of the respondents-contemnors, which is not even insisted by the UGC notification and for which affidavit was tendered by the same respondent on 6.9.2011 speaks volume about the fact that the matter has not been examined by the respondents in an objective manner with pragmatic approach. The respondents have shown pedantic and defiant attitude without realizing the true purport of the verdict of the Court and the earlier declaratory judgments. One more redeeming fact having ramification on the conduct of the respondents-contemnors deserves cognizance. In this behalf, it may be observed that the petitioners in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.124/2013 (Dr. Prashant Panwar & Ors.) laid a contempt petition earlier, which was registered as S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 80/2011, wherein order dated 18th of August, 2011 was passed. The petitioners of the said contempt petition thereupon preferred a misc. application and, while disposing of the misc. application, the Court was pleased to decide the contempt petition itself by its order dated 04.01.2013. In this order, the coordinate Bench while taking cognizance of the order passed by the Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, dated 6.11.2012, pleased to direct the respondents to grant desired reliefs to the petitioners (Lecturers) at par with the other general colleges subject to their completion of orientation/refresher courses by the year 2017 in terms of order dated 6.11.2012. The complete text of order dated 04.01.2013 is reproduced as under: These matters have been have been placed before this Court on the misc. applications moved by the petitioners that earlier order dated 18.8.2011 has been passed and the contempt petitions have been disposed of with the direction that after completion of Refresher/orientation course, the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8418/2011 would be complied with. applications moved by the petitioners that earlier order dated 18.8.2011 has been passed and the contempt petitions have been disposed of with the direction that after completion of Refresher/orientation course, the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8418/2011 would be complied with. The contention of the present petitioners is that in spite of the order dated 25.10.2010 which reads as under : “In view of the aforesaid legal position and the controversy being squarely covered, this Court is not inclined to reopen the controversy any more and the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court time and again and, therefore, it is high time that the respondents should implement the said judgments in letter and spirit and provide the same relief and treatment to the lecturers of the Sanskrit Colleges and pay the same pay and allowances as is being paid to the lecturers of other general Colleges”, the present petitioners have not been given the benefit of the order and still they have not been granted Selection Scale and fixation have not been made. Hence the order dated 18.8.2011 be recalled and contempt petitions be restored to its original number. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present petitioners have not completed the Refresher/Orientation Course and hence the benefit of the judgment could not be extended to them and the respondents are not at any fault. Looking to the fact that still the order dated 25.10.2010 has not been complied with, the order dated 18.8.2011 is recalled and the contempt petitions have been restored to its original numbers and with the consent of the parties, the matters have been heard finally. The contention of the present petitioners is that they have not been given the benefit of the order dated 25.10.2010 and again and again they are being dragged in the cumbersome litigation. As to the contention of the Refresher/Orientation Course, it has been stated that on 6.11.2012 the Government of Rajasthan, Education Department has relaxed the condition of completing the Orientation/Refresher course which reads as under : “These orders are issued with the following conditions. As to the contention of the Refresher/Orientation Course, it has been stated that on 6.11.2012 the Government of Rajasthan, Education Department has relaxed the condition of completing the Orientation/Refresher course which reads as under : “These orders are issued with the following conditions. (1) The pay of a Lecturer placed in Senior or Selection Scale as per the provisions contained in the order shall be fixed in accordance (2) Relaxation of participation in Orientation and Refresher Course for the placement in Senior and Selection Scale shall be available upto 5 years from the date of issuance of this order, but after this period no additional increment shall be granted to the incumbents who do not participate in required Orientation and Refresher Courses for Senior and Selection Scale. Whenever the requirement of Orientation/Refresher Courses has remained incomplete, the placement in Senior Scale and/or Selection Scale would not be held up provided that such incumbents complete such Course by the year 2017 with the Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay for Government Sanskrit College Teachers Rules, 2012. This order is issued with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their ID No.121200112 dated 26.10.2012.” In the light of the above circular, the contention of the respondents is that Orientation/Refresher Courses have not been completed is not an impediment in compliance of the order dated 25.10.2010. The learned Additional Advocate General has fairly conceded that in view of the above circular, the respondents will now implement the directions of the court in their letter and spirit. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to comply with the orders of this Court dated 25.10.2010 and the present petitioners be given the same relief and treatment and same pay and allowances as being given to the lecturers of other general Colleges. At the same time, it has also been made clear that the present petitioners are required to complete their Orientation/Refresher Courses by the year 2017 as provided in the Circular dated 6.11.2012. With the above directions, both these contempt petitions and the misc. applications are disposed of. Despite order passed by the State Government on 6.11.2012 and disposal of the contempt petition No.80/2011, the respondents have not made endeavour to make compliance of the order and that has prompted the petitioners to lay the second contempt petition. With the above directions, both these contempt petitions and the misc. applications are disposed of. Despite order passed by the State Government on 6.11.2012 and disposal of the contempt petition No.80/2011, the respondents have not made endeavour to make compliance of the order and that has prompted the petitioners to lay the second contempt petition. These serious omissions and commissions of the respondents clearly and unambiguously tantamount to showing scant regards to the orders passed by this Court, which is a glaring example of civil contempt within the four corners of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. Thus, taking into account the chronological events and scrutinizing the compliance made by the respondents of the verdict dated 18th January, 2011, there remains no semblance of doubt or suspicion that respondent-contemnors, Dr. Mandan Sharma, Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur, respondent No.4, and Shri Pradeep Sen, Secretary, Education (Group-VI) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No.5, respectively, in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.205/2011, have made deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. Although umpteen opportunities were granted to them to make compliance but neither they have shown remorse, nor repentance for their acts and omissions and instead have persisted with their stand that the petitioners are entitled for pecuniary benefits from the date of filing of the writ petitions. In that background, defiance of the order/directions issued by this Court is clearly apparent, which is deliberate and wilful and not due to unavoidable circumstances or inadvertence. It is really a matter of serious concern that while making alleged compliance of the directions of this Court, the respondents-contemnors have deliberately and wilfully ignored and overlooked the declaratory verdict in Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers' Association and Laxmi Narain's case (supra) as well as indignation shown by this Court in its order dated 18th September, 2013 and the undertaking of the Additional Advocate General to extend pecuniary benefits to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment. It is also distressing that while granting notional benefits to the petitioners from the date anterior to filing of the writ petitions and actual benefits from the institution of writ petitions, the respondents have simply relied upon the verdict in Kali Charan's case, which was also decided almost two decades earlier and have not explained as to why the other verdicts referred to in the order dated th of January, 2011 were not considered. Moreover, there is no whisper in the order nor it can be inferred that the writ court while passing the order has confined pecuniary benefits to the petitioner from the date of institution of the writ petitions. By not showing their readiness and willingness to implement the verdict in letter and spirit with objectivity, ignoring and overlooking the ground realities, the respondents-contemnors have shown their sheer obstinacy and an act of conscious disregard to the directions of this Court, which is a gross contempt of the Court within the four corners of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. Therefore, I hold the respondent-contemnors, named hereinabove, guilty of committing contempt of this Court. Although the respondents-contemnors have tendered unconditional apology for their alleged omissions and commissions, but in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am constrained to observe that the apology tendered by them is not sincere and bona fide. It is trite that apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor it is intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be real evidence of contriteness (M.Y. Shareef V/s. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur, AIR 1955 SC 19 ). Consequently, I feel disinclined to accept apology tendered on behalf of the respondents and the same is hereby rejected. Now adverting to the punishment, which is to be meted out to the respondents-contemnors for their conduct to intentionally defeat or stultify the order of the Court, which is a gross contumacious act, the gravity and magnitude of the offence is to be looked into. Taking into account the dignity and majesty of the Court paramount, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise this extraordinary power with forbearance and circumspection by handing down sentence of seven days simple imprisonment to both the respondents-contemnors named above in each contempt petition. Taking into account the dignity and majesty of the Court paramount, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise this extraordinary power with forbearance and circumspection by handing down sentence of seven days simple imprisonment to both the respondents-contemnors named above in each contempt petition. The sentences awarded to the respondents-contemnors shall run concurrently. Both the respondents are also saddled with a fine of Rs.2,000/for each contempt petition, which they are required to pay individually. The sentences awarded to the respondents-contemnors shall remain suspended for a period of sixty days from today. The respondents are further directed to ensure compliance of the verdict of this Court, in its letter and spirit, by allowing pecuniary benefits to all the petitioners in their wage structures and grant of senior and selection scales by reckoning their services from the date of initial appointment within a period of two months from today. A copy of this order be placed in all these files.