Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 261 (UTT)

Raspal Singh v. S. K. Kabidayal

2016-06-21

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present civil contempt petition, the petitioners seek that the respondent/opposite party be punished for committing willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2015, passed by this Court, in WPSS no. 1708 of 2015, titled as Raspal Singh & others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards judgment and order dated 14.08.2015, passed by this Court, in WPMS no. 2008 of 2014 (Annexure 2 to the contempt petition). He submitted, that on 28.09.2015, writ petitions of the present petitioners were finally disposed of, with a direction that the Judgment rendered by this Court on 14.08.2015 shall also be applicable in case of the present petitioners. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that other similarly situated persons have already been granted minimum of pay scale + grade pay benefit, whereas the petitioners have been left out and they are yet to be granted the benefit of the aforesaid Judgment and Order. 3. Instead of issuing contempt notices to the respondent/opposite party, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 14.08.2015, passed earlier by this Court, is being reproduced here-in-below to remind the opposite party that a duty has been cast upon him to do something, as per the order dated 14.08.2015, which has not been done as yet. The same reads as under. “All the writ petitioners had worked or are working still with the respondents, till their services are not required, as Grade ‘C’ or ‘D’ daily wagers. Their grievance has been highlighted by their respective learned Counsels as they are not being paid the minimum of pay scale of such posts at the initial level along with the Grade Pay determined by the Government from time to time by way of issuing several Government Orders in this regard. Learned counsels have taken this Court to the Government Order dated 9.11.2009; 5.7.2010; 7.5.2011; 4.1.2013 and ultimately the Government Order issued on 12.3.2014 bearing no. 299/X-1-2014-7(4)/2009. This Government Order recommends granting of initial amount of pay band plus Grade Pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission as revised from time to time by different Government Orders. 299/X-1-2014-7(4)/2009. This Government Order recommends granting of initial amount of pay band plus Grade Pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission as revised from time to time by different Government Orders. There was some confusion, as contemplated by District Forest Officers of the State, to the effect that whether the grant of such initial amount plus Grade Pay is only for the employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’, who had worked or working against the vacant/sanctioned post or otherwise. Such confusion was wiped out by the Circular Letter sent by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kumaon to the District Forest Officers on dated 20.8.2014, and such letter makes the position clear in this regard. It clarifies that pursuant to the Sixth Pay Commission, all the workers of Group ‘D’ will get Rs. 4400/- as scale pay plus Rs. 1300/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 23.3.2011 and Rs. 5200 as scale pay plus Rs. 1800 as Grade Pay w.e.f. 24.3.2011. It may be inferred that the same analogy should be applied to the workers of Group ‘C’ post vis-à-vis to the minimum of pay scale plus Grade Pay of the regular employees in that category for different period of time. This Court is not aware as to the total number of working days and the exact period of work of each and every petitioner, but this much is certain that whatever span of time or a block of period or a number of days, they had worked or are working or have to work, such minimum of the pay scale plus Grade Pay calculated on the above rate shall be payable to all of them and this task can be done on the basis of their attendance roll available with the department. The respondents shall ensure the payment to the petitioners as quickly as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this judgment and order. All efforts shall be made by the respondents to ensure the payment partially, to save the petitioners from the stage of indigence, subject to availability of financial budget with the department. It is hereby made clear, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court also, that no increment or other allowances or the dearness allowance will be payable to these petitioners pursuant to effect of this judgment.” 4. It is hereby made clear, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court also, that no increment or other allowances or the dearness allowance will be payable to these petitioners pursuant to effect of this judgment.” 4. Instead of issuing notice to the respondent, civil contempt petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the petitioners to remind the respondent/opposite party, of the order dated 28.09.2015, and the respondent/opposite party, in turn, is expected to do the needful at the earliest, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 5. If the respondent/opposite party fails to do so, it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter and he will be liable for appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order upon the opposite party, within a week.