THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C.1643 OF 2009 11-11-2010 Between: A.Nagoor son of Krishnaiah and others ..Petitioners Vs. Registrar, S.V. University, Tirupathi and another …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C.1643 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of the order of this court dated 23-09-2004 in the writ petition. The University and the State have preferred an appeal against the order in WA No.114 of 2009 which was also dismissed on 30-01-2009. Hence the contempt case. By the judgment of this Court dated 23-09-2004 the respondents were directed, following the earlier judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 24-09-2002 in W.A.No.21 of 2000, that the respondent-University shall extend the benefits of the revised pay scales issued in G.O.Ms.No.287(F&P) dated 03-12-1991 to the petitioners, w.e.f 01-07-1986 and that the consequent arrears of salary and emoluments shall be quantified and paid to the petitioners expeditiously, in any event within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Despite the order dated 30-01-2009 the respondents did not implement the order or extend to the petitioners the benefit of the judgment, is the substantive complaint. In a series of affidavits in response filed by the respondents, a succession of orders were issued initially formal in nature which had not the effect of actually paying the revised pay scales or arrears of salary. Eventually however, the revision of pay scales and the calculation and payment of arrears of salary on the basis of such revision has been effected. This is admitted in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 31-10- 2010. It is however the complaint of the petitioners that some of the petitioners had retired and are pensioners. As a consequence of the judgment of this court not only should the pay scales be revised and the arrears of salary and emoluments be paid but also the pension has to be revised and the benefit of difference between the pension initially fixed and the revised pension should be extended to the retired petitioners, is a grievance. It is stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents had calculated the benefits up to the date of their respective retirements and had paid only the arrears of salary and emoluments on the basis of the revision of the pay scales. It is also the grievance that after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.287 dated 03- 12-1991 the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.140(F&P) Department dated 29-03-1994 revising the pay scales on the recommendations of the Anomalies and Re-grouping Committee w.e.f 1-4-1990 and the pay fixation was done following G.O.Ms.No.140 wherever applicable but the respondent-university has not extended this benefit to the petitioners. As the pay scales were revised as directed by this court and the arrears of pay and emoluments on that basis has also been paid to the petitioners, the judgment of this court in the writ petition, has substantively been complied with. While it is a legitimate expectation of the petitioners that consequent on the revision of pay scales they are also entitled to the revision of their pensionary benefits, the failure of the respondents in effecting the revision of the pension or the other grievances of the petitioners regarding denial of the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.140 pursuant to the recommendations of the Anomalies and Re-grouping Committee, fall outside the pale of the judgment of this court. The failure of the respondents in this regard may be justiciable in independent proceedings but does not constitute a wanton and willful disobedience of the order of this court. As contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, a rigorous construction of the liability of the respondents qua the judgment is in order. On the aforesaid analyses, this court discerns no merit in the subsisting grievance of the petitioners in this contempt case. As the respondents have implemented the order of this court though grudging and belatedly, I find no reasons to proceed further in the matter. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in respect of the subsisting grievance, in appropriate proceedings. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. The rule is discharged. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 11th NOVEMBER 2010 TSNR