•^r i C^. lfiiSTn^srisK IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGATH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) No.^^ /2009 (Arisingout of order dated 14.08.2008 passed in W. P.(S) Np. 2424^008 by signal bench of this Hon'ble Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Satish K. Agnihotri.) PETITIONER u \......-:%£j^ ^2^'^""" ^ K.R.Verma, S/o late Shri Bholauram Verma, aged abput- 61 years, R/o. Retired Head Clerk / Accountant, Seth Ratan Chand Surana Arts/ Science College, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) ^^" 2. M.K. Raut, Secretary and Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Raipur (C.G.) Ramkaran Shukla, Finance Officer/Joint Director (Finance), Directorate of Higher Education Science College Campus, Raipur (C.G.) S.S. Khahgan, Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) R.K. Upadhyay, Principal Seth Ratan Chand Surana Arts & Science College, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Mushran, Chief Secretary, Finance Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 215(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READWITH SECTION 10 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondents ContemDt Case (Civil) No.253/2009 K.R. Verma Versus M.K. Raut and others i h-i i«i --, (Contempt Petition under Article 215 (2) ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act) Present: - Shri Basant Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel forthe respondent no.4 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 22-02-2011) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation and disobedience of interim order dated 14/08/08 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.2424/2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court raising a grievance that he is entitled to revised pay scale of 4500-7000/-, whereas the respondents authorities have granted a lower pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. He submits that as the pay scale granted to him i.e. Rs. 4500-7000/- was reduced to Rs. 4000-6000, a writ petition was filed, wherein, an interim order was passed on 14/08/2008 to the effect that no deduction shall be made till the disposal of the case. This Court further observed that the petitioner is entitled to his salary which is due and payable to him. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid interim h1"^ order was passed by recording the submission that on the basis of order dated 29/12/2007, the respondent authorities have proceeded to deduct salary for alleged excess payment. He further submits that this Court prima facie was of the view that no recovery of excess payment, if made, not on account of any fault or mis-representation made by the employee, can be made and that recovery is being made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even after that order, the petitioner has not been granted salary in the pay scale of Rs.4,500- 7,000/- but, only in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000 to 6,000/-. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of this petition and in view of orderwhich was passed by this Court on 19 January 2011, now, the salary ofthe petitioner has been calculated in the pay scale of Rs. 4,500 to 7,000/- in respect of the period from 01/01/96 to 31/12/2001 and the difference of pay comes out to Rs. 70,258/-, in respect of which the Joint Director (Finance) Directorate of Higher Education has issued a letter on 15/02/11 which is in response to the letter dated 10/02/2011 ofthe Principal ofthe College. In the application for taking additional documents on record, a letter dated 31/01/11 of the Principal has been placed on record proposing grant of arrears, whereafter, the said letter dated 15/02/11 has been issued by the Joint Director. It has also been stated that as per the letter of the Joint Director, the amount due for payment is Rs.70,258/-, being the arrears of difference amount in the pay scale of Rs. 4000 to 6000/- and Rs. 4,500 -7,000/- in respect ofthe period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.2001 -. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the cheque, which has been prepared for payment, has also been brought and produced in the Court. He offers the same, which is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner for being handed ©verto the petitioner. ;:^---"•''" 1>- 4. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim order passed by the Court, the respondent-Joint Director, Higher Education ought to have accepted the whole proposal of the Principal vide his letter dated 31/01/11 for payment of arrears from 01/01/96 to 30/09/2006, in the opinion of this Court, such a dispute cannot gone into in the contempt proceedings. From letterdated 15.2.2001 oftheJoint Director, it appears that some calculation, based on the difference of the pay scale, has been drawn in respect of the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.10.2001 and the arrears have been calculated as Rs.70,258/-. The petitioner is always at liberty to dispute such calculation by makingrepresentation before the concerned authority. However, once the payments have been made by the concerned respondents on the basis of some calculation made by them, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the matter. The rule is therefore discharged. However, it is clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy or steps, if any, towards his claim, as may be available to him under the law. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Laxmi