1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10/2006 (Rajendra Tater Vs. Ram Lubhaya) IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2741/2002 Date of order : 2.9.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate General. In this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents-contemnors have not complied with the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 4.3.2005 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2741/2002. After issuing notice of contempt, on 10.8.2006, it was submitted by the respondents- contemnors that directions given by this Court have been complied with. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to verify the factual position. Thereafter on 6.9.2006, it is observed by 2 Coordinate Bench of this Court that “..... From perusal thereof, it appears that the respondent is taking the contempt proceedings in quite a casual manner. No attempt appears to be made for making compliance of the directions given by this Court in its true spirit. Accordingly, the respondednt No.2 is directed to respondent No.2 is directed to remain present in the Court on 18.9.2006”. In compliance of the aforesaid order Mr. Sudhir Bhargava, Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan appeared in the Court and matter was posted on 6.10.2006 after exempting his presence. On 6.10.2006, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the respondents instead of granting adequate promotional avenue, granted two higher grades in lieu of promotion avenues as ordered by understanding the direction given by this Court in the terms that only two higher grades are required to be given irrespective to the determination of promotional avenues. Further it is observed in the order dated 6.10.2006 that the finding of the Court was to provide adequate promotional avenues to the lecturers in the subject of Health Education & Family Planning and if such promotion avenue is not given, then in lieu of that the pay scales pertaining to promotional posts for two ranks be given to the 3 lecturers in the subject concern. As such the respondents are first required to determine the promotional avenues for the Lecturers in the subject of Health Education & Family Planning and if such cannot be given, then by treating the post as isolated one adequate higher pay scale are required to be given. While observing as aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents was given four weeks time to comply with the directions in its true spirit. Later on, the case was adjourned from time to time and at last on 23.7.2008, the case was listed in the Court and a specific directions was given after perusing the reply filed by the respondents that the respondents-contemnors shall explain how the pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- and pay scale of Rs.12,000- 350-16,500/- as on 1.9.2005 can be treated to be compliance of the order whereas this Court has specifically passed an order to grant either adequate promotional avenues or at least two higher grades in lieu of promotion to the Lecturer. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 23.7.2008, the explanation has been filed by the respondents-contemnors. In the explanation submitted by the respondents-contemnor, it is stated that initially pay scale of petitioner was Rs.8,000- 4 13,500/- when he was appointed as lecturer and the corresponding senior and selection scale is Rs.10,000- 15,200/- and 12,000-16,500/- respectively, therefore, these benefits of higher pay scales were given to the petitioner because in the judgment given by learned Single Judge, the respondents were directed to give two higher pay scale if the post is isolated post. Learned counsel for the respondents- contemnors apprised this Court that there is no channel of promotion from the post of lecturer in the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as lecturer but nomenclature of the post of Lecturer was changed as Assistant Professor and from the post of Assistant Professor there is no channel of promotion in the Health Education and Family Planning Department, so also the petitioner is not possessing qualification for the post of Reader and Professor as such no promotion can be given to the petitioner. However, as per order of this Court dated 6.10.2006, the post upon which the petitioner is working was considered to be isolated post and petitioner has been granted adequate higher pay scale vide Annexure-R-2/1 dated 27.10.2006 in which there is no illegality. Learned counsel for the respondents- contemnors vehemently argued that validity of the order of compliance cannot be adjudged in the contempt 5 petition, the petitioner can challenge the said order which is passed in consonance with the order passed by this Court, therefore, it cannot be said that respondents–contemnors have committed any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. I have considered all the submission made by both the parties. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain lapses on the part of the respondents for not complying with the directions given by this Court within time and in its true sense but at the same time after passing order dated 6.10.2006 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in which it is observed that the respondents are first required to determine the promotional avenues for the post of lecture for Health Education and Family Planning Department and if such benefit cannot be given then by treating the post as isolated one, adequate higher pay scales are required to be given. In my opinion, the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- and pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500/- is obviously higher then the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/-, therefore, it cannot be said that any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court is committed by the respondents-contemnors. Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further against the respondents-contemnors in the contempt proceedings in view of the fact that 6 vide order dated 27.10.2006 Annexure-R-2/1, two higher pay scales have been allowed to the petitioner and if these pay scales are not in consonance with the order passed by this Court, then, the petitioner can raise his grievance by way of filing fresh writ petition. No case for willful disobedience is made out against the respondents-contemnors. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices of contempt issued against the respondents-contemnors are hereby discharged with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in compliance by the respondents-contemnors, if so advised. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun