Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1144 (RAJ)

Chad Singh v. Ranveer Singh

2019-04-15

DINESH MEHTA, SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of order dt. 18.11.17 passed by a Bench of this Court, whereby the special appeal being No. 59/17 preferred by the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited against the judgment dt. 17.9.16 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 10949/10 was dismissed and the special appeal being No. 883/16 preferred by the Chairman, Chidabutter Village Service Co-operative Societies, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, was allowed. 2. It is noticed that vide judgment dt. 17.9.16, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner assailing the charge sheet dt. 19.1.91 and the inquiry report dt. 7.2.09/21.2.09 concluding the inquiry against the petitioner and recommending his dismissal from service of the respondent-Chidabutter Village Service Co-operative Societies, Padampur, was allowed with the directions in the following terms: "As a consequence, while quashing and striking down the charge-sheet dt. 19.1.1991 and the inquiry report dt. 7.2.2009/21.2.2009 (Annex. 1) and the action sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner, the respondents are directed make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner while treating him to be in continued service." 3. It is pertinent to note that the Society had preferred the special appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge contending that the petitioner herein was not in employment of the Society rather, he was employee of the bank. The appeal preferred by the Society has been allowed by the Bench of this Court by the order disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition, holding that the petitioner was employee of the bank and not of the Society. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the bank questioning the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench also stands dismissed vide order dt. 6.7.18 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 11810/18. 4. It is not disputed before this Court that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 13,40,855/- against the arrear of salary and other benefits. 5. 6.7.18 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 11810/18. 4. It is not disputed before this Court that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 13,40,855/- against the arrear of salary and other benefits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having been declared as an employee of the bank, his fixation was required to be made on the lowest post available in the cadre of the respondent bank i.e. Loan Supervisor and thus, the amount paid by the respondent treating the petitioner to be the Manager of the Society, drawing the salary in existing pay scale, is not full compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 6. Admittedly, it was not the lis before this Court either before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench that the petitioner being an employee of the bank, is entitled for fixation of salary in the pay scale admissible to the post of Loan Supervisor. Obviously, by virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to be treated to be in continuous service as Manager and shall be entitled for arrear of salary etc. taking into consideration the salary drawn by him in his existing pay scale revised from time to time. But in any case, on the strength of the said order, the petitioner cannot claim fixation of salary on the post of Loan Supervisor. Obviously, if the petitioner was employed in the bank on the post not included in the cadre of the bank then it has its own consequences. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the strength of the order disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition beyond what is admissible in terms of the order. Needless to say that it is always open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedy available under the law, if has any legitimate claim for fixation of pay in the pay scale admissible to the Loan Supervisor and benefits flowing therefrom. 7. Needless to say that it is always open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedy available under the law, if has any legitimate claim for fixation of pay in the pay scale admissible to the Loan Supervisor and benefits flowing therefrom. 7. In view of the discussion above, the order disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition stands substantially complied with and therefore, we are not inclined to continue with the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents any further. 8. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Notices.