Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 257 (AP)

R V Papa Rao v. Arjun Rao, I. A. S

2021-04-09

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. P. Rajini Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Smt. K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri K. Mdhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. Aggrieved by non-compliance of the order, dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.42163 of 2017, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for wilful, deliberate, wanton violation of the orders of this Court. 3. This Court passed interim order, dated 1.11.2018 I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.42163 of 2017 as extracted hereunder: “Having regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh [ (2017) 1 SCC 148 ] the respondents shall pay wages to the petitioner(s) on par with the minimum pay-scale of regularly engaged employees of Endowments Department discharging similar duties.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately after receipt of the order copy, the petitioner submitted representations to the Respondents on 05.12.2018, 19.12.2018 and 04.11.2019. Though sufficient time is lapsed from the date of representation, the respondents did not choose to implement the orders of this Court and having fully, deliberately, wantonly violated the orders of this Court, and as such, they are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender in SKR College for Women, Rajamahendravaram on 03.07.2005 on consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. He is rendering services in the institution and the services of the petitioner are equally to that of the regular employees and there are no difference between the services rendered by him with relation to duties, functions and responsibilities. As such, he is eligible for the extension of time scale attached to the said post. 6. The 1st respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 19.01.2021, I additional counter-affidavit filed on 29.01.2021 and II additional counter-affidavit filed on 24.02.2021. 7. In the counter-affidavits, the 1st respondent submits that he has taken charge as Special Commissioner, Endowments Department on 20.05.2020. As such, he is eligible for the extension of time scale attached to the said post. 6. The 1st respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 19.01.2021, I additional counter-affidavit filed on 29.01.2021 and II additional counter-affidavit filed on 24.02.2021. 7. In the counter-affidavits, the 1st respondent submits that he has taken charge as Special Commissioner, Endowments Department on 20.05.2020. By the time of he has taken the charge as Special Commissioner of Endowments, the concerned file is not in running state and the concerned Section has not placed the file before him till the date of order of this Court directing him to appear before the Court personally. He has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the concerned. 8. The 1st respondent submits that to meet the work load in the subject college, its Correspondent choose to take the services of some persons on consolidated payment. Likewise, the services of the petitioner were taken by the Correspondent on consolidated pay vide Proceedings, dated 03.07.2005. The services of the petitioner was taken initially on consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month and the same has been enhanced from time to time by the Correspondent of the subject college. Records disclose that at no point of time, the Correspondent of the college has obtained prior permission from the Commissioner, Endowments Department either for taking the services of the petitioner on consolidated pay or for enhancement of consolidated pay to him from time to time till so far. 9. The 1st respondent submits that as per the Government Memo No.36021/32/Endowments-I(2)/2018-1, dated 04.07.2018 and proceedings in Rc.No.A11059511/2018, dated 20.07.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, instructions were issued to extend minimum time scale of pay to NMRs/Contract employees payable to corresponding post of regular employees in the Last Grade Services without allowances such as HRA, CCA, DA as consolidated pay irrespective of filing of Writ Petitions and obtain interim orders from the Hon’ble High Court or not. 10. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that under the impression that the 4th respondent has implemented the proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 of the Commissioner of Endowments or atleast after grant of interim orders by this Court, the then Commissioner might have not issued any memo to the 4th respondent to implement the interim orders, dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submits that the 4th respondent being Correspondent of the subject college is competent authority to implement interim orders of this Court as well as the orders of the Government, dated 04.07.2018 and proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 of the Endowments Commissioner and no permission again from the Endowments Commissioner is necessary to comply with interim order of this Court. In case, the 4th respondent felt that specific prior permission from the Commissioner, Endowments Department is necessary to implement the orders of this Court, he might have obtained such permission from the Commissioner of Endowments by submitting a proposal, but, he did not do so. 12. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 12.02.2021 and additional counter-affidavit filed on 26.02.2021. 13. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018, the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.6225/Admn.I/2019, dated 02.08.2019 addressed 4th respondent to submit action taken report on the orders of the Hon’ble Court along with other relevant record through special messenger. Instead of reporting about the implementation of the orders of this Court, the 4th respondent in his letter No.36/2017, dated 30.11.2019 (addressed to the 3rd respondent) informed that the petitioner represented for regularisation of his services and requested to take necessary action. The letter of the 4th respondent is not for seeking any permission for implementation of the interim orders of this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends that in terms of Rule 7(2)(4) of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.29, Education, dated 05.02.1987, the Educational Agency of any private institution shall pay salaries to its staff as per the Government scales of pay and by following such procedure as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. The 2nd respondent further contends that the petitioner have been engaged by the 4th respondent college against unaided post, the liability of payment of salary lies with the management of the college, as the appointment of the petitioner was ordered without involvement of the 2nd respondent and also in view of the Rules stated supra. 15. The 2nd respondent further contends that the petitioner have been engaged by the 4th respondent college against unaided post, the liability of payment of salary lies with the management of the college, as the appointment of the petitioner was ordered without involvement of the 2nd respondent and also in view of the Rules stated supra. 15. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the Commissioner of the College Education cannot take action and not obliged to allow minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner because the Commissioner of Endowments is the competent authority, as the institution falls under administrative control of the Endowments Department. 16. The 3rd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 08.02.2021. He filed his counter-affidavit on the same lines as that of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and he further submits that he is not the authority to comply the orders of this Court and he is not the officer to direct the 4th respondent to comply the orders of this Court. 17. The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit on 17.01.2021, additional counter-affidavit filed on 04.02.2021 and further additional counter-affidavit filed on 23.02.2021. 18. In his counter-affidavits, the 4th respondent contends that he has taken charge as Assistant Commissioner and Correspondent of the subject institution on 14.02.2019. Two weeks after his joining, he went on leave for six months and on completion of leave, he joined duty on 17.08.2019. After he joined duty, he has received a letter, dated 04.11.2019 from the petitioner informing the orders of this Court and requested to regularise his post and provide minimum scale of pay to him. He further contends that the petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent on 19.12.2018 immediately after interim orders of this Court without submitting a copy to the institution. The then in-charge Correspondent of the college has not taken any steps to comply with the interim orders of this Court. He has addressed letters to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 30.11.2019 for necessary orders in the subject matter, as the writ petitioner is a contract employee on consolidated pay of SKR College for Women, Rajamahendravaram, which is a private aided Degree College as per G.O.Ms.No.752, Education (V) Department, dated 31.01.1973 and the same is under the administrative control of the 2nd respondent. 19. 19. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent contends that he is under the impression that implementation of interim order of this Court connects with sanctioned aided post of an Attender, which is kept vacant in subject college and thereby she sought for permission from the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to comply with interim orders of this Court. As he has not received any reply from the respondent Nos.2 and 3, as such, he is unable to take action for comply the orders of this Court. 20. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent also contends that he was under the impression that the general directions issued by the Government, vide its Memo, dated 04.07.2018 and the Proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 of the Endowments Commissioner are applicable only to the NMRs/Contract employees working in religious and Hindu Charitable Institutions of Endowments Department, but, not to the writ petitioner, who is an employee of subject college and as such, he was under the impression that the said Government Memo and Proceedings of Commissioner of Endowments are not relevant to the case of the writ petitioner and waited for permission from the 2nd respondent for his letter, dated 30.11.2019. After filing of the Contempt Case, he obtained legal advice and immediately issued proceedings in Rc.No.6/2018, dated 28.12.2020 extending minimum time scale of pay to the post of Attender in the Last Grade Service to the writ petitioner and served the copy of the said proceedings to the petitioner under proper acknowledgement on 28.12.2020. 21. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent further contended that the delay in comply the orders of this Court is also due to COVID-19 pandemic. In view of the said circumstances, the delay caused in implementing/complying with the order and the said act is neither wilful nor intentional and therefore in the light of the well settled law that it does not constitute Contempt of Court. 22. All the respondents in their counter-affidavits contends that there is no any wilful or wanton disobedience in complying with the orders of this Court and they tendered their unconditional apology to this Court for the delay occurred in complying with the orders of this Court. 23. 22. All the respondents in their counter-affidavits contends that there is no any wilful or wanton disobedience in complying with the orders of this Court and they tendered their unconditional apology to this Court for the delay occurred in complying with the orders of this Court. 23. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents, on examination of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 on 27.01.2021 (i.e.) on the day of their personal appearance before the Court and the 3rd respondent on 11.02.2021 when he was produced before this Court on execution of N.B.W. and upon perusing the averments made in the respective counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, the following facts emerged for consideration: (1) Hitakarni Samajam, Rajamahendravaram was established in the year 1906 by Sri Rao Bahudoor Kandukuri Veeresalingam Pantulu, a social reformer, with noble objects of permission of education, maintenance of widow women, orphanage, school for boys & girls and the same was under private management till the said institution was published under Section 6(b)(i) of the Endowments Act vide Proceedings Rc.No.30372/67-31-M, dated 14.10.1968 of the Endowments Commissioner; (2) The same was registered under Section 38 of Act, 17 of 1966, vide proceedings in R.Dis.No.13033 of 1971, dated 04.05.1972 of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry; (3) The said institution was upgraded as an institution under Section 6(a)(i) of the Act, 30/1987 in the year 2018 under the management of subject institution as many as 7 educational institutions including SKR College for Women, Rajamahendravaram (i.e., the 4th respondent in writ petition) have been recognized by the Government and initially affiliated to the Andhra University and now to the Adi Kavi Nannayya University; (4) The government has accorded grant-in-aid to the subject college vide G.O.Ms.No.752, Education (V) Department, dated 31.07.1973; (5) The petitioner was appointed as Attender by the Correspondent of the 4th respondent college on consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month vide proceedings, dated 03.07.2005 and he is discharging his duties continuously to till date; (6) The petitioner requested the Correspondent of the 4th respondent college to extend minimum time scale and it was not considered; (7) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.42163 of 2017 before this Court and by order, dated 01.11.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2017, this Court directed the respondents to pay wages to the petitioner on par with the minimum of pay scale of regularly engaged employees of Endowments Department discharging the same duties; (8) Even prior to the interim orders, dated 01.11.2018 of this Court, the Government vide Memo, dated 04.07.2018 and Proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 of the Endowments Commissioner instructions were issued to all the Executive Authorities of the institutions to extend minimum time scale of pay to NMRs/Contract employees payable to corresponding post of regular employees in the Last Grade Service without allowances, such as HRA, CCA, DA as consolidated pay irrespective of filing of writ petitions and obtaining interim orders from the Hon’ble High Court or not; (9) The Correspondent, Sri SKR College for Women, Rajamahendravaram has issued orders vide Proceedings in Rc.No.6/2018, dated 28.12.2020 extending minimum pay of Rs.13,000/- per month in the time scale attached to the post of Attender in compliance of the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018. 24. On perusal of the above mentioned facts, it is clear that the order, dated 01.11.2018 of this Court is complied with on 28.12.2020. The order of this Court is implemented after 2 years. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is wilful, intentional and deliberate violation in implementing the orders of this Court. 25. Now the issue to be decided is which respondent is responsible for non implementation of the orders of this Court in true spirit and who is liable for punishment to be imposed by this Court for such violation. 26. The 1st respondent admitted that he has taken charge as Special Commissioner of Endowments Department on 20.05.2020 and at that time the concerned file is not in running stage and the concerned section has not placed the file before him till the date of receipt of notice in Form-I of this Court in the Contempt Case. He also stated in his counter-affidavit that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the concerned for not placing this issue before him. Besides this, prior to order of this Court, dated 01.11.2018, the State Government vide Memo, dated 04.07.2018 and Proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 and the Commissioner of Endowments clear instructions were issued to all the Executive Authorities of all the institutions to extend minimum time scale of pay to NMRs/Contract employees. As such, it is clear that it is the duty of the 4th respondent to extend the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner in terms of Government Memo, dated 04.07.2018 and Proceedings of Endowments Commissioner, dated 20.07.2018. 27. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Officers of the Education Department. As the petitioner was appointed by the 4th respondent as an Attender on consolidated payment of Rs.1,000/- per month, the 4th respondent has to pay the salary to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7(2)(4) of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.29, Education, dated 05.02.1987. 28. On perusal of the relevant Rule, it is clear that the liability of payment of wages to the petitioner in compliance of the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018 lies with the Management of the College. 28. On perusal of the relevant Rule, it is clear that the liability of payment of wages to the petitioner in compliance of the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018 lies with the Management of the College. This Court also noticed that the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.6225/Admn.I/2019, dated 02.08.2019 addressed to the 4th respondent college to submit action taken report on the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018, which is much prior to the letter, dated 30.11.2019 of the 4th respondent addressed to the 3rd respondent. 29. In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience in implementing the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018 on the part of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. 30. On comprehensive analysis of the averments made in the counter-affidavits filed by all the respondents and in the light of the facts emerged, on careful consideration of the entire case, it is categorically established that the liability of payment of wages to the petitioner prior to the orders of this Court or after orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018 lies with the management of the college. In terms of Memo, dated 04.07.2018 of the Government and the Proceedings, dated 20.07.2018 of the Endowments Commissioner, the 4th respondent has to extend minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner. The reasons stated by the 4th respondent in his counter-affidavits for not implementing the orders of this Court for more than 2 years are not acceptable and unjustified. 31. This Court prima facie satisfied that the 4th respondent is responsible for non-implementation of the interim orders of this Court. In the opinion of this Court, the 4th respondent is found guilty of the offence committed for wilful disobedience of the interim orders of this Court, which is punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 32. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the 4th respondent, post on 09.04.2021. 33. The 4th respondent shall present before this Court on 09.04.2021. 34. When the Court asked the 4th respondent as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, he prayed the Court to pardon him. 35. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the 4th respondent, post on 09.04.2021. 33. The 4th respondent shall present before this Court on 09.04.2021. 34. When the Court asked the 4th respondent as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, he prayed the Court to pardon him. 35. In the present case, the 4th respondent is the Assistant Commissioner Cadre Officer in the Endowments Department and he is also discharging duties as Executive Officer/Correspondent of Smt. Kandukuri Rajya Lakshmi College for Women, Rajamahendravaram. The petitioner is working in the said College as an Attender. It is the responsibility of the 4th respondent to see that the payments for which the petitioner is legally entitled for the work discharged by him without any delay to enable him for his survival and to feed his family. Because of the careless and lawlessness attitude of the 4th respondent, the petitioner and his family suffered a lot for non-implementation of the orders of this Court. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by the 4th respondent is not acceptable and in the opinion of this Court, it is not bonafide. 36. Besides this, if any lenient view is taken against such type of offences, who are not implementing the orders of this Court, years together, and implementing Court orders only after directing their appearance before the Court, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government officers. 37. A Four Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab, 1972(3) SCC 839 made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us: “Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology “without any further word”. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt.” 38. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology “without any further word”. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt.” 38. In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is an intentional and wilful disobedience in implementing the orders of this Court, dated 01.11.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2017 in W.P.No.42163 of 2017 in true spirit, by the 4th Respondent. Therefore, this Court holds that the 4th respondent is liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 39. Accordingly, the contempt case is allowed and the 4th Respondent/Contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven (07) days. 40. In view of the alarming situation due to sudden hike of second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and also in view of age of the 4th respondent/contemnor, in the opinion of this Court, it is not desirable for sending the 4th respondent/contemnor into jail immediately and as such, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks.