Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 146 (MEG)

Union of India v. Madhu Sudan Sarkar

2019-05-10

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This Misc. Application has been filed by the respondents for modification of the orders dated 25.02.2019 and 02.04.2019 passed by this Court in the connected petition whereby directions have been issued for drawal of contempt proceedings if the salary of the writ petitioner was not released. 2. The applicant/respondent in the application have averred that as per the order of interim stay order dated 22.11.2018, they have complied with the same and retirement of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance by the respondents. 3. It is further stated in the said application that non-payment of salary after the date of retirement will not amount to contempt of order of the Court, for the reasons that the salary of the employees of the Assam Rifles are generated by computerized systems, and unless order for payment pension is not removed from the system by an order of the appropriate authority i.e. the discharge order passed by the authority is set aside by this Court, it would amount to withdrawal of the said discharge order by the authority itself who has passed the said order and it would be against the norms of the statutory provisions govern for discharge of the incumbent under the provision of Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. As such, for the reasons it is contended that salary cannot be released to the writ petitioner. 4. Further it has been contended that non-payment of salary will not amount to contempt, inasmuch as, in other similar applications where stay orders had been issued by this Court staying discharge from service, contempt applications filed for payment of salary had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 5. In reply thereto, the writ petitioner has contended that this Court by order dated 02.04.2019 had directed for the release of the salary of the writ petitioner failing which the order dated 25.02.2019 would be implemented for drawal of contempt proceedings. As such, the instant matter according to the writ petitioner stands on a different footing as there is categorical order for payment of salary to the petitioner. 6. It is also contended by the writ petitioner that instead of complying with the orders dated 25.02.2019 and 02.04.2019; the respondents have filed the instant application for vacating of the said orders. As such, the instant matter according to the writ petitioner stands on a different footing as there is categorical order for payment of salary to the petitioner. 6. It is also contended by the writ petitioner that instead of complying with the orders dated 25.02.2019 and 02.04.2019; the respondents have filed the instant application for vacating of the said orders. The writ petitioner further contended that after the order dated 22.11.2018 by which the discharge order has been stayed, the writ petitioner is discharging his duties and as such he is in service and entitled to a salary. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the application and the affidavit filed in this regard. To put it very briefly, this Court by the order dated 22.11.2018 had stayed the discharge order dated 23.11.2017 and subsequently by the order dated 25.02.2019 had directed for the release of the salary failing which contempt proceedings would be drawn up. It is to be noted that this order was passed indicating the drawal of Contempt proceedings on the courts own motion or Suo Motu. Subsequently, on the failure of the learned CGC to obtain any instructions with regard to the release of the salary, this Court by order dated 02.04.2019 again directed for the release of the salary and indicated therein that failure would result in implementation of the order dated 25.02.2019 for drawal of contempt proceedings. After a period of 4(four) months from the date of passing of the interim stay order, the respondents have filed the instant Misc. Application not for modification of the interim stay order but only for recall of the order for drawal of contempt proceedings. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts as placed and the reasons ascribed in the application for modification, to justify non implementation of the orders of this Court and non-payment of salary to the writ petitioner. Notwithstanding, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondents that stay of an order will not amount to quashing of an order of discharge to warrant the necessary payment of salary, the very fact this application had been preferred only for modification of the order of drawal of contempt and not of stay and that too belatedly, apart from raising unsustainable grounds such as the computerization etc. and disregarding the fact that the writ petitioner is serving reflects the disregard the respondents have shown to the orders of this Court. I also find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the instant case in view of the order dated 25.02.2019 stands on a different ground from the other similar cases as cited. 9. As such no grounds having been made out to warrant modification of the said orders dated 25.02.2019 and 02.04. 2019 this application being without any merit is rejected and disposed of.