Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 312 (ORI)

Sananda Sahu v. Gagan Kumar Dhal

2016-04-19

BISWANATH RATH, VINOD PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This contempt petition arises for alleged violation of this Court’s direction dated 3.9.2013 contained in the final decision rendered in O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000. 2. Brief facts available from the case record are that the present petitioners joining together filed O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000 praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to declare them as the employees of the Sambalpur University to grant them full salary and other allowances including retiral benefits as enjoyed by their counterparts in Government, non-Government, aided Colleges and University with effect from 1.4.1994. 3. After hearing both the contesting sides and hearing them at length and also after considering rival contentions of the parties, while disposing of O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000, this Court arrived at a positive conclusion to the extent that there was no justification on the part of the Government not to increase block grant so as to meet the salary cost of the petitioners and on the above findings, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition gave following directions: “In view of the discussions made in the precedent paragraphs, we direct the opp.party no.3-State of Orissa to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of the Sambalpur University so as to meet the full salary cost of the employees of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School at par with their counterparts working in the Govt./aided educational institutions. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from today, keeping in view the observation made above.” 4. The petitioners who were also the petitioners in the writ petition while filing the present contempt petition allege that albeit by letter dated 26.9.2013 the petitioners requested the opposite parties for taking an early decision enclosing therein the copy of the judgment passed by this Court and besides also there being communication of the judgment of this Court by the Registry of this Court, no action was taken for compliance of the order as reproduced above. The petitioners also gave a reminder on 13.12.2013 requesting the opposite parties for immediate implementation of the aforesaid judgment, yet there is no compliance of the direction of this Court by the opposite parties, which amounts to willful and deliberate defiance of the judgment of this Court and consequently present application for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties has been filed under the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. In response, the opposite party no.1, by filing an affidavit, indicated that following the direction of this Court, a decision in the matter has been taken vide Higher Education Department order No.20004 DHE dated 26.8.2014 in consultation with the Finance Department and basing on the said correspondence, respondents claimed that the order of this Court has been complied with. By filing an affidavit dated 8.10.2015, in paragraph-7, the opposite party specifically contended that there is admittedly some delay in complying the direction of this Court and for this, while sincerely regretting, Sri Dhal, opposite party no.1 tendered unconditional apology. Pursuant to further direction of this Court, Sri Dhal, filed another affidavit on 19.11.2015 appending therein correspondences vide Annexures-B/3, C/3, D/3 and E/3 and contended that there has been follow up actions following the compliance of this Court’s order, as such there is already compliance of the direction of this Court. 6. Since the petitioners disputed the claim of the opposite parties regarding compliance of this Court’s direction, this Court was constrained to pass orders directing the opposite parties for filing an unambiguous compliance affidavit. There was also a direction for personal appearance of the Finance Secretary so as to clarify as to whether the order of this Court has been fully complied with or not. The finance Secretary, on his appearance, on 31.3.2016 filed a further affidavit and contended that the order of this Court has been complied with and there is no violation of this Court’s order. 7. The finance Secretary, on his appearance, on 31.3.2016 filed a further affidavit and contended that the order of this Court has been complied with and there is no violation of this Court’s order. 7. On perusal of the direction of this Court made in O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000, this Court finds that the Division Bench while disposing the writ petition had given following directions: “In view of the discussions made in the precedent paragraphs, we direct the opp.party no.3-State of Orissa to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of the Sambalpur University so as to meet the full salary cost of the employees of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School at par with their counterparts working in the Govt./aided educational institutions. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from today, keeping in view the observation made above.” On perusal of the aforesaid direction, it is abundantly clear that this Court simply directed the opposite party no.3, the State of Orissa to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of the Sambalpur University so as to meet the full salary cost of the employees of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School at par with their counterparts working in the Government/aided educational institutions and the decision as aforesaid was required to be taken within a period of two months from the date of the order. 8. From the allegations of the petitioners and submissions advanced by Sri G.A.R.Dora, learned Senior Counsel, it appears that the petitioners have a grievance of not being paid their actual entitlements. From the reading of the order dated 26.8.2014 passed by the Department of Higher Education enclosed as Annexure-A/3 by the opposite party no.3, the Government, in compliance of the direction of this Court and considering the fact situation involved in the matter, endorsed the relevant file to the Finance Department for enhancement of block grant as the Finance Department was the appropriate authority for making necessary budgetary provision in this regard. After due consultation with the Finance Department, the Department of Higher Education expressed its view that the proposal for enhancement of Block Grant of Sambalpur University to meet the full salary cost of the employees of the Jyoti Vihar Secondary School may be taken up by the Sambalpur University after observing that there is no budgetary provision for grant-in-aid for the University. By a further communication, the Department of Higher Education on 13.11.2015 once again communicated the Vice Chancellor, Sambalpur University clarifying therein that during the particular financial year, the block grant for Sambalpur University has been enhanced by Rs.3,06,51,000/-. Besides, proposal has also been submitted to the Finance Department for giving an additional block grant of Rs.13,49,89,000/-to the Sambalpur University during the particular financial year. From the affidavit dated 31.3.2016 filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, he has given a categoric statement to the effect that not only the Finance Department enhanced the block grant of Rs. 3,06,51,000/-in the current financial year but considering the proposal for additional block grant, the Finance Department sanctioned Rs.1.00 crore specifically earmarking the same for the salary requirement of +2 College, Jyoti Vihar as per letter No.9401 dated 9.10.2015. The Finance Department provided a sum of Rs.1.00 crore to the Sambalpur University in the supplementary budget 2015-16 particularly for +2 College, which is in compliance with the direction of this Court. In paragraph-7 of the said affidavit, the Additional Chief Secretary, further contended that upon their query on the subject, the Controller of Finance, Sambalpur University had written a letter dated 30.3.2016 indicating that in compliance of the order of this Court, a cheque bearing No.825214 dated 30.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.82,31,454/-has been issued in favour of the Secretary, Governing Body, Jyoti Vihar Junior College for payment of salary and differential salary to the said staffs following the direction of this Court in O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000. While submitting the above, the affidavit also appended a statement of arrears as per enhanced salary and the acknowledgement of receipt of cheque thereof. From the whole reading of the above, it clearly appears that the order of this Court passed in O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000 has already been complied with by the opposite parties to the contempt petition. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed in making out a case for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite parties. Consequently, while dismissing the contempt petition but considering the allegation of the petitioners that there still remains some dispute in between the petitioners and the University authority unresolved, permission is accorded to the petitioners to raise such issues in an appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances. 10. In the result, the contempt petition fails. Consequently, while dismissing the contempt petition but considering the allegation of the petitioners that there still remains some dispute in between the petitioners and the University authority unresolved, permission is accorded to the petitioners to raise such issues in an appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances. 10. In the result, the contempt petition fails. However, there shall be no order as to cost.