z IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case No. /2008 ^ PETITIONER : ., ^c®^' "'sA -^'vi^& »»***. ;:^KyiTl^'^^' plSSa"'" ^C3-^"*;" ®^d--"" RESPONDENTS 1] 2] 3] ^ss^lf^ Sheikh Jumman, Aged about 67 years, S/o. Late Sheikh Chhote, R/o. House No. 32/102, Opposite Bunkar Society, Amapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) VERSUS Nand Kumar, Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) A.C. Dwivedi, Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (CG) Dr. Shail Shandilya, District Educatiori Officer, Board of Secondary Education Premises, Raipur (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971 ^^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,^. PETITIONER Contempt Case No.224/2008 Sheikh Juraman Versus RESPONDENTS Nand Kumar 85 Ors. Contempt Petition u/A 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia r/w Section 10 of theContempt ofCourts Act, 1971 Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 13.7.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 4.4.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No.3371/05, by which, the petition of the petitioner was allowed in the same terms as the order passed on 27.3.2008 in the case of Chinta Mani Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (W.P. No.4797/04), declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of F.R. 22- D. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subraits fhat even though the petitioners has been held entitled for benefit of F.R. 22-D, the said benefit has not been given to him by respondent No.2, but, \ on the contrary, respondent No.2, vide his communication dated -2- 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-15) has stated that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable frora the case of Chinta Mani Gupta (supra) and if the benefit of F.R. 22- D is given to the petitioner, it will result in recoveiy from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner subraits that respondent No.2 had no authority to sit over the judgment of the Court or to refuse grant of benefit on any other assumption with regard to the applicability of the rule regarding fixation of pay once the matter has been finally decided by the Court, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit ofF.R. 22-D. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 had no intention of flouting or disobeying the order of the Court. He submits that respondent No.2 had examined the case of the petitioner in the light of letter dated 2.6.2008 of the District Education OfGcer and he found that if pay of the petitioner is fixed by applying F.R. 22- D, in the ultimate Bxation, petitioner will suffer financial loss, which may lead to recovery. He submits that with a view that petitioner may not suffer any financial loss upon such fixation, the petitioner has been informed that such fixation will not be in his interest. 5. The petition Eled by fhe petitioner was aUowed by the Court vide order dated 4.4.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No.3371/05, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of F.R. 22- D. The counsel appearing for the respondent-State in that matter, did not controvert submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the writ petition has been considered and - 3 - ^v decided in the case of Chinta Mani Gupta (supra), decided on 27.3.2008. Leamed counsel for respondent No.2 did not dispute that neither any application for recall of the order has been made nor any appeal preferred against the said order. Therefore, the order passed by the Court on 4.4.2008 has attained fuiality. A perusal of the memo dated 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-15), however, shows that the Joint Director, Treasury Accounts 8s Pension has made an attempt to distinguish the case of the petitioner. This is wholly impermissible and clearly amounts to overreaching the order passed by the Court. Once the petition of the petitioner was allowed on specific statement made by the State counsel that the issue involved in the case of the petitioner is covered and decided in the case of Chinta Mani Gupta (sputa), the Joint Director had no business to again dwell into the matter and sit over fhe orders and proceedings of the Court. If fhe respondent had any reservation; fhe only course open was to file appeal, review etc. or to take any other remedy which may be available under the law; Such an action on the part of respondent No.2 amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court. 6. It appears that respondent No.2 assumed that Exation of pay of the petitioner iinder F.R. 22-D wiU not result in any benefit, but, will resiilt in pecuniary loss. This assumption, which appears to be based on memo dated 2.6.2008 of the District Education Officer, itself, is in defiance of the Court order. The order of the Court required the respondent to give benefit of F.R. 22-D to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the provision contained in F.R. 22- D -4- would show that the initial pay in the time-scale to the higher post is required to be fbced at the stage of next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing pay in respect of the lower post by one increraent at the stage at which such pay has accrued. The memo dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P-8) of the District Education Officer, clearly shows that at the time of promotion, the petitioner was drawing pay at the stage of Rs.5,900/- in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. The pay scale of the post for which the petitioner was promoted was also Rs.5,000 to 8000/-. In view of the order passed by the Court, all that was required to be done was to notionally Bx the pay of the petitioner in terms of F.R. 22 D (1) in the manner prescribed therein. However, it appears that instead of complying with the order of the Court, the District Education Officer and Joint Director have unnecessarily coraplicated the issue by sitting over the orders of the Court and considering the case of the petitioner in their own mEinner to arrive at conclusion that fixation of pay under F.R. 22- D would result in pecuniaiy loss. Once this Court had directed benefit of F.R. 22-D to be given, the respondents could not have traveUed beyond the order of the Court and then to say fhat the petitioner would suffer pecuniary loss. 7. Even though, I find that the action of the respondent is an act of willful disobedience of the order of the Court, what has been stated in the memo dated 1.8.2008 of the Dy. Director and what has been said in the affidavit before this Court is that fixation \ under F.R. 22-D was not done because, according to respondents -5- c^> i-Lnderstanding, it would result in pecuniary loss to the petitioner, which may result in recovery frora his pension. 8. Respondent No.2 has tendered unconditional apology. During the course of argument, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 did not have any ill-intention to cause loss to the petitioner. 9. Considering the entu-e facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration that there is no past record of respondent No.2 in defying order of the Court and also in view of the submissions made in the reply that respondent No.2 be granted apology, in case order is found to be violated and considering that the matter relating to fusation of pay by the Dy. Director was based on recommendations made by District Education Officer, apology tendered by respondent No.2 is accepted and the rule against respondent No.2 discharged, however, with a warning not to repeat this conduct in future. 10. Accordingly, respondent No.2 or his successor in his office shall now proceed forthwith to pass appropriate orders granting benefit to fhe petitioner in terms of F.R. 22- D, keeping in view the observations made by this Court. 11. The petition is accordingly Enally disposed of. Manin,,draMobanS ivastava ludge Praveen