Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1872 (RAJ)

Rajesh Yadav v. Sitaram Sharma

2017-08-21

AJAY RASTOGI, ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2017
ORDER : 1. Instant intra court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 9th May, 2016 extending certain benefits which have not been so far specifically granted by the ld. Single Judge while disposing of the original writ petition on 4th December, 2014. 2. The respondent-employee when approached this Court by filing of Writ Petition No.5748/1998, unfortunately, that remained pending for a sufficient long time and decided vide order dt. 4th December, 2014. We consider it appropriate to quote the operative part of the order against which the contempt petition was filed:- "10. From the pleaded facts and materials on record, there is no justification for denying the benefits of the pay scale and other allowances to the petitioner w.e.f. 30th October, 1992, the relief, which was granted by the First Appellate Court confirmed by the High Court in Civil Second Appeal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the SLP was declined. 11. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ application is partly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the pay scale on the post of Conductor w.e.f. 30th October, 1992 along with the other admissible allowances. 12. The respondents are directed to release the monetary benefits allowing the pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 30th October, 1992 along with other admissible allowances, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 3. In compliance of the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 4th December, 2014, the Corporation passed the order dt. 2nd March, 2015 & in furtherance with fixation in the regular pay scale vide order dt. 18th June, 2015 and also paid arrears to the respondent-employee vide order dt. 27th October, 2015. 4. Still, the respondent was not satisfied with the order passed by the Authorities and served the legal notice for committing deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court and calling upon the officers of the Corporation as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them and since the legal notice for contempt was not responded by the officers, Contempt Petition No.1025/2015 was filed. 5. After the notice came to be served, reply was filed by the Officers of the Corporation placing on record the order in compliance of the order dt. 4th December, 2014 of the ld. Single Judge. 5. After the notice came to be served, reply was filed by the Officers of the Corporation placing on record the order in compliance of the order dt. 4th December, 2014 of the ld. Single Judge. Taking note of the alleged compliance made by the Officers of the Corporation, the ld. Single Judge while deciding the Contempt petition vide order dt. 9th May, 2016, impugned passed further order for grant of fixation in the Sixth Pay Commission and also making payment of arrears pursuant thereto and we consider it appropriate to quote the order passed by the ld. Single Judge in the Contempt Petition filed at the instance of the respondent: "Hence, the respondents are directed to make payment to the petitioner of all the arrears of revised pay scale as per recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission within a period of two weeks. The respondents are further directed to pay weekly rest, encashment of gazetted holidays, paid leave to the petitioner within the stipulated period of two weeks. However, the claim of the petitioner that he has not been paid house rent and city allowance, is disputed by the counsel for the respondent, as it is their specific stand that in computation, admissible house rent and city allowance has already been paid to the petitioner. Consequently, the present contempt petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay arrears of revised pay, as per recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission along with weekly rest, encashment of gazetted holidays and paid leave within two weeks. Further liberty is granted to the petitioner that in case amount is not paid, he may take appropriate remedy available to him in accordance with the provisions of law." 6. Ordinarily, the appeal is preferred against the order, if any, being passed in the contempt petition, if the contemnors are punished under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act but the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank and Ors. Ordinarily, the appeal is preferred against the order, if any, being passed in the contempt petition, if the contemnors are punished under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act but the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank and Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, while examining the maintainability of intra court appeal has observed that if the contempt Court passed further directions relating to the merits of the disputes between the parties, the intra court appeal has been held to be maintainable and after having heard counsel for the parties, we are also of the view that the intra court appeal filed by the Corporation against the order dt. 9th May, 2016 passed in Civil Contempt Petition No.1025/2015 in the light of what is being observed by the Apex Court in (2006) 5 SCC 399 is maintainable. After having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there was no such direction of the ld. Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition for grant of arrears or fixation in the revised pay scale as per the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission or weekly rest, encashment of gazetted holidays or paid leave to the respondent and what is being observed by the ld. Single Judge while disposing the contempt petition under order impugned, in our considered view is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the present appeal in the light of what has been observed deserves acceptance. 7. Counsel for the respondents submits that he may be permitted to file miscellaneous application before the ld. Single Judge seeking clarification regarding fixation and payment of arrears of the Sixth Pay Commission and other consequential benefits to which the employee is entitled for. 8. Counsel for the respondents submits that he has an apprehension that the Corporation may initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount paid prior to passing the order impugned dt. 09th May, 2016. There appears no justification for the Corporation to make recovery of the amount already paid to the respondent-workman being entitled for under the relevant rules. 9. The appeal accordingly succeeds and the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 09th May, 2016. There appears no justification for the Corporation to make recovery of the amount already paid to the respondent-workman being entitled for under the relevant rules. 9. The appeal accordingly succeeds and the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 9th May, 2016 passed in Contempt Petition No.1025/2015 is quashed and set aside and we grant liberty to the respondent-employee to file miscellaneous application seeking clarification of what is being prayed for, if permissible by the law.