LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) Date of Order: 3.12.2009 Rajan Kashyap and another ...Appellants Versus Ved Prakash Mangla and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms.Gurveen Kaur, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil K Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR AND JASWANT SINGH, J.J 1. This appeal filed under clause X of the letters patent is directed against an interlocutory order dated 13.9.2000 passed by learned Contempt Judge of this Court in COCP No.735 of 1997. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the COCP No.735 of 1997 itself has been disposed finally vide order dated 11.2.2003. 2. Some back ground facts are required to be noticed first. The respondents herein had earlier filed CWP No.13425 of 1995 and 13426 of 1995. Those petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench on 11.7.1996 by a common order, which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts and circumstances of the cases are squarely covered by the judgment in Sunder Lal v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) Recent Services Judgment 91. The writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in Sunder Lal's case (supra). Accordingly, we direct the respondents for fixing the pay scales of the petitioner immediately in pay scale commensurate to their nature of duties and post within six months LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #2# but the petitioners be paid within 3 months all the arrears that might be due to them by fixing them in a pay scale immediately higher to that they were getting on the post from which they were promoted. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 3. The Division Bench judgment in Sunder Lal's case has laid down a principle of law that it would wholly be unreasonable and unjust to place a lower post and higher post in the same pay scale. If post of Clerk is a feeder post for promotion as Assistant then it would not be possible to place both the posts in the same pay scale. 4. The learned Contempt Court recorded a finding that promotion to the post of Senior Laboratory Technician is made from the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-I. It has been further held that fixation of pay scale of Sr. Laboratory Technician Grade-I has not been determined as per the directions issued vide order dated 11.7.1996 because Sr. Laboratory Technician could not be given the pay scale lower than the Laboratory Technician Grade-I as was sought to be done by the appellant. Likewise, Senior Laboratory Technician was given the scale as was given to Multi Purpose Supervisor, which is also a feeder post for promotion to the higher post of Sr. Laboratory Technician. Learned Contempt Judge further opined that the aforesaid discussion has been held to bring violation of direction of this Court to the notice of the appellants. It was in the aforesaid background that the learned Contempt Court recorded violation of the order in the following words: “In view of the aforesaid determination, it is clear that the judgments rendered by this court has not been complied with for the persons holding the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade-II w.e.f 1.1.1986. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision rendered by this court has been violated for the purpose of fixation of pay LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #3# scale of Laboratory Technician Grade-I enforced with effect from 1.1.1978. After 1.1.1986, the pay scale of Multi Purpose Supervisors/Sanitary Inspector was revised to 400-660 with 50% of the cadre being placed in the Selection Grade of Rs.1640-2925. Those promoted to the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-I were paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. Consequent upon the decision rendered by this court, the scale of 1200-2100 was revised to Rs.1500-2640. Obviously the revised scale is lower than what a member of the feeder cadre could be drawing i.e 1640-2925. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this court even while fixing the pay scale of Laboratory Technician Grade-I after 1.1.1986.” 5. After recording the finding in the aforesaid manner, learned Contempt Judge granted an opportunity to the appellant to purge the contempt before taking any punitive action. Concluding para of the order reads thus: “The deliberations effected above are only to bring to the notice of the respondents that the exercise conducted by them is not in conformity with the decision rendered by this court. A large number of affidavits were filed from time to time giving an impression to this court that the respondents had been trying to implement the decision rendered by this court. It cannot, therefore, be stated with any certainty that the interpretations placed by the respondents on the orders passed by this court were genuine and bonafide or intentional and deliberate. Be that as it may, the exact purport of the order passed by this Court has not been achieved. It will, therefore, be for the respondents to implement the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.13425 of 1995, now in the light of the interpretation expressed above. Compliance be effected within five months from today. Copy of the order be supplied to the counsel for the parties Dasti on payment of usual charges. To come up on 19.2.2001.” (emphasis added) LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #4# 6. Against the interlocutory order dated 13.9.2000, the State of Punjab firstly filed SLP No.1038 of 2001, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.2.2001 with liberty to file an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Then the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 7. After passing of the aforesaid order on 13.9.2000, contempt petition No.735 of 1997 finally came up for consideration on 11.2.2003 when contempt petition itself was disposed of with the following observations: “It is not disputed that the petitioners have been given the relevant pay scale. It is contended that other persons who are not before the Court should be given the said scale. No handicap is shown in the way of concerned persons claiming the same. In absence of that, such a prayer cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Disposed of.” 8. After disposal of the contempt petition, petitioner-respondent filed an application bearing C.M.No.693 of 2006 for disposal of the letters patent appeal by citing order dated 11.2.2003, which has finally disposed of the contempt petition. However, the appellant-State filed an application U/o VI R 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the grounds of appeal of the letters patent and to raise additional grounds for bringing on record the factum of passing of order dated 11.2.2003. Another application bearing C.M.No.786 of 2006 seeking condonation of delay of 1245 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 was also filed. To the aforesaid application, non- applicants/respondents have filed reply and have opposed the same. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #5# are of the considered view that the instant letters patent appeal was directed against an interlocutory order passed by learned Contempt Judge on 13.9.2000. Learned Contempt Judge after extracting the violation of the directions issued by the court on 11.7.1996, has granted one opportunity to the appellant to purge the contempt by complying with the directions issued in CWP Nos.13425 of 1995 and 13426 of 1995. We are not oblivious of the preposition that where some general directions are issued by a Court and in compliance of the same, an order is passed, which may not be in strict conformity with the directions, then it cannot be considered to be a wilful disobedience of the earlier order/directions issued by the Court. In such a situation, appropriate remedy is to avail the opportunity of judicial review by the aggrieved party as the same furnishes a fresh cause of action (refer to J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others AIR 1997 SC 113). However, in the present case, learned Contempt Judge by passing the aforesaid interlocutory order has only endeavored to determine the true purport and effect of the directions dated 11.7.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in order to facilitate the compliance by the state authorities-appellant. Even learned Additional Advocate General has not raised any such argument, which may impel us to think that the learned Contempt Judge has substituted the order of the writ court passed on 11.7.1996 with his own order resulting in exceeding jurisdiction of a Contempt Judge by grabbing of jurisdiction of a writ court. The aforesaid course adopted by learned Contempt Judge culminated in passing of the final order disposing of the contempt petition on 11.2.2003, which has been placed on record as Annexure P.3 with their aplication moved U/o 6 R 17 CPC i.e C.M.No.788 of 2006. A perusal of the order shows that COCP No.735 of 1997 was LPA No.1438 of 2001(O&M) #6# disposed of by recording a finding that there was no dispute between the parties that the contempt petitioners were given the relevant pay scales, therefore, the matter stood concluded. The contempt, if any stood purged as per direction issued by this Court on 13.9.2000 while passing interlocutory order, which is under challenge in the letters patent appeal. We are of the view that Letters patent appeal challenging the interlocutory order would not survive in view of the fact that eventually on 11.2.2003, COCP No.735 of 1997 has been disposed of and the contempt, which was permitted to be purged by the impugned order has come to an end. After passing of order dated 11.2.2003, neither there is any grievance of the writ petitioner- respondent nor can there be any grievance by the appellant either with regard to order dated 13.9.2000 or order dated 11.2.2003. 10. It is pertinent to mention that against the direction issued on 11.7.1996 by the learned Single Judge while disposing of CWP Nos.13425 of 1995 and 13426 of 1995, State of Punjab filed SLP No.7358 of 1997 and 7432 of 1997 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The aforesaid SLPs were dismissed on merit on 3.10.1997. Accordingly, order dated 11.7.1996 attained finality. It was thereafter that the writ petitioner filed COCP No.735 of 1997, which led to the passing of order on 13.9.2000, which eventually disposed of on 11.2.2003. 11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, nothing survives in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE December 03, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE