Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 41 (KAR)

M. A. Jayashree v. Bharat Lal Meena

2017-01-04

K.S.MUDAGAL, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2017
ORDER : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The complainants have filed these cases for initiating contempt proceedings against the accused for disobedience of the order in W.P. Nos. 59592-59631/2014 disposed of on 24.4.2015. 2. The complainants filed the above writ petitions seeking payment of revised UGC scale for the period from 1.1.2006 till their retirement and for certain other reliefs. This Court by order dated 24.4.2015 directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 therein to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments as per the revised pay scale to which the complainants would be entitled to for the period from 1.1.2006 to 23.12.2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and on failure to make such payment, the complainants to pay interest at 8% per annum. 3. The accused have filed their counter affidavit on 7.9.2016 stating that the order of this Court has been complied with and that payments have been made to the complainants as per Annexures 'R1' to 'R3'. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the complainants have filed review petitions in R.P. Nos. 671/2015 and 695-733/2015 for review of the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and that the review petitions are pending. 4. Additional counter affidavits also have been filed by the accused on 24.9.2016, 20.10.2016, 25.10.2016 and 15.11.2016 respectively. 5. Sri V. Padmanabha Kedilaya, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the accused have failed to comply with the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused is absolutely necessary. In support of his contentions, he has taken us through the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) JARNAIL SINGH VS. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS - AIR 1994 SC 1484 ; (ii) U. RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - AIR 2006 SC 2145 ; (iii) SYED ABDUL QADIR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - (2009) 3 SCC 475 ; (iv) KALI AKKURICHI TALUKA RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU - (2013) 2 SCC 772 ; and (v) W.P. NO. 15175/2009 disposed of on 7.12.2010 between DR. B.S. MOODITHAYA VS. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS. 6. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - (2009) 3 SCC 475 ; (iv) KALI AKKURICHI TALUKA RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU - (2013) 2 SCC 772 ; and (v) W.P. NO. 15175/2009 disposed of on 7.12.2010 between DR. B.S. MOODITHAYA VS. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the accused submits the accused have already complied with the order of this Court in W.P. Nos. 59592-59631/2014 disposed of on 24.4.2015. She has taken us through the counter affidavits filed by the accused as also the documents at Annexures 'R1' to 'R3'. It is submitted that the complainants have filed review petitions in R.P. Nos. 671/2015 and 695-733/2015 before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the order in W.P. Nos. 59592-59631/2014 and the same are pending. In the review petitions, they have sought certain clarifications in relation to payment of the benefits. It is submitted that if there is any dispute in relation to the payments made by the accused, they have to seek modification of the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is well established that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision, which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order, traverse beyond it or give additional directions or delete any direction contained therein. If two interpretations are possible and if the action is not contumacious, the contempt proceedings would not be maintainable. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, this Court has directed the accused to pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments as per the revised pay scale to which the complaints would be entitled to for the period from 1.1.2006 to 23.12.2009. The Court has further directed that on failure to make such payment, the complainants would be entitled to interest at 8% per annum. The Court has further directed that on failure to make such payment, the complainants would be entitled to interest at 8% per annum. The contention of the learned Counsel for the complainants is that a portion of the revised salary has been paid and that the complainants are not informed as to when the remaining amount would be paid. Even the DA and DCRG and other emoluments have not been paid in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of this Court in W.P. Nos. 112957 to 113040/2014 and other connected matters disposed of on 5.2.2015. The accused have taken a stand that in terms of the order of this Court, arrears of salary and other emoluments as per the revised pay scale have been paid to the complainants. The accused have produced chart as per Annexures 'R1' to 'R3' evidencing the payment of the amount. According to the accused, the entire amount has been paid to the complainants. Admittedly, the complainants have filed review petitions seeking review of the order in W.P. Nos. 59592-59631/2014. The relief sought in the review petitions is to direct the accused to pay all the benefits as claimed in W.P. Nos. 59592-59631/2014 except salary arrears with interest at 12% per annum from 24.12.2009. Therefore, contention of the learned Counsel has to be urged in the aforesaid review petitions or they have to challenge Annexures 'R1' to 'R3' separately. 10. We have perused the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the complainants. In JARNAIL SINGH (supra), the Apex Court has held that 'pension' to include gratuity according to Article 366 of the Constitution. 11. In U. RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA (supra), the Apex Court has held that retired teachers of private aided colleges and Universities to be treated on par with the Government employees. By executive instructions, employee cannot be deprived of vested or accrued right. 12. In SYED ABDUL QADIR (supra), the Apex Court has held that benefit extended to certain employees should be extended to other similarly situated employees, who had not even moved the Court. 13. By executive instructions, employee cannot be deprived of vested or accrued right. 12. In SYED ABDUL QADIR (supra), the Apex Court has held that benefit extended to certain employees should be extended to other similarly situated employees, who had not even moved the Court. 13. In KALI AKKURICHI TALUKA RETIRED OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION (supra), the Apex Court has held that the classification made by the State Government in the impugned G.O. dated 9.8.1989 placing employees, who had retired after 1.6.1988 at a disadvantage vis-à-vis employees, who had retired prior thereto, by allowing them a lower component of 'dearness pay' is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. 14. In DR. B.S. MOODITHAYA (supra), this Court has held that the Government has committed itself to pay arrears for the period from 1.1.2006 to 30.4.2008. These decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. These decisions relate to merits of the claim of the petitioners therein. 15. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to proceed with these complaints. Reserving liberty to the complainants to urge their contentions in the review petitions filed by them or to challenge Annexures 'R1' to 'R3' in separate proceedings, these proceedings are dropped. No costs.