BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF_ CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (L^&£ - CONTEMPT P@ ^*)-(C]VIU No.^] V.V !.[ '•'!'<': •'-.•:••. .1 ^ £;:?^i3 ^'^;.l3 . /2008 (Arising out of order dated 12.04.2007 passed in W. P. No. 4090/2005 by Single bench of this Hon'ble Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Shri S.K. Agnihotri) PETITIONER W-: K.R. Verma S/o. late Shri Bholauram Verma, aged about- 61 years, R/o. Retired Head Clerk/ Accountant, Seth Ratan Chand Surana Arts/ Science College, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS CONTEMNORS ,^?S^:55^ ^f vs^ ^T^" SpEfWs^y 1. T. Ramesh Kumar Secretary and Commissioner, Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipuc— ^ £>.A. Secretary,Finance Department,D.K.S.Bhawan, ^-" Raipur(C.G.) 3. R.K.Upadhyay, Principal, Seth _ Ratan Chand Surana Arts & Science College, Durg, District- _ Durg (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CO NSTITUTION OF 1NDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1 3-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Sjnale Bench; Hon'ble Shri Manjndra Monan Shrjvastava, J, PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS CONTEMPT CASE lciviil N0.271/2008 K.R.Verma Versus T.Ramesh Kumar and others CONTEMPT PETiTiON UNDER ARTiCLE 215 OF THE CONSITuTiON OF )ND!A READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMFT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 Present: - Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Thakur, counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2: Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsei for respondent No.3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19' January, 201 1) Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide order dated 12/4/07 passed in VV.P. No.4090/05 had aliowed the petition granting same relief and benefits as stated in the judgment and order dated 6/2/07 passed in W.P.No.4108/05. Thereafter, the petitioner fiied another writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.100/08 with a grievance thatthe benefit ofthe order passed on 12/04/07 has not been extended whereupon this Court disposed off the petition with liberty to make appropriate representation by observing that there is no reason as to why this order be passed, time and again and ail the authorities have to comply with the order passed by the High Court. It is submitted that as the order passed by ihis Court was not compiied with, a contempt petition was filed, which was flnaily disposed off on 14/3/08 in contempt petition No.33/08 wherein, it was obsen/ed that the respondents have compiied with the orders and the contempt has been purged. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that thereafter an order has .^<t;... «*"^s "!%^^i-r^ ^^ ••s /• ^ been passed on 27/6/08, wherein it has been again stated that the benefrt of fifth pay scale is sanctioned to non-teaching employees of Government aided private coiieges w.e.f. 1/10/06. Learned counsei for the petitioner then submitted that even though this Court directed that benefit of fifth pay scaie as to be given to the petitioner and the non-teaching staff of Govemment aided private institute, the respondents have not made full payment and only a smatl amount has been paid till date, which shows that the respondents are flouting the order of this Court. 3. On the other hand, submission of iearned counsei for the resoondents No.1 and 2 is that in compiiance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent authority had duly passed an order on 29/2/08 (Annexure R/4) that arrears of fifth pay scale wouid be granted in ten, six monthiy instailments, in respect of the period from 1/1/96 to 30/09/06. in the repiy of respondent No.1, it has been stated that in compiiance of order dated 12/4/07 passed in W.P.No.4090/05 in terms and conditions of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4180/05 dated 6/2/07, an order was passed initiaiiv on 2/1/07 and then an amended order was issued on 25/5/07, the same was thereafter again amended on 12/3/08 in compliance of the order passed on 12/4/07 in Vv.P.No.4090/05. Thereby, the first part of the order dated 6/2/07 has been complied with. Thereafter, on 29/2/08, another order has been passed which cleariy shows that the petitioner and ali simiiariy situated employees would be entitled to benefits of fifth pay scaie and arrears wouid be paid in respect of the period from 1/1/96 to 30/9/06 payable in ten six monthiy instaiiments. It has also been stated on affidavit that the Directorate of Higher Education cailed for arrears of aii the empioyees of grantee colleges and for two six monthiy instaiiments, the budget provisions were made and sent to the Government, which invoives a sum ./' i'4 f y ••« iS-- &..- fr ''Cs^ || ^«a®i3 v^,^ of 110 lakhs per annum. Therefore, fresh budgetary provision is required to be made. It has aiso been stated that oncearrears are paid as per six monthly instailments as directed by the Court, the last part of the order would also be complied with. 4. What seems to have driven the petitioner to file this contempt petition is issuance of order dated 27/6/08 (Annexure C/6) passed by the Higher Education Department. Learned counsei for the respondents No.1 and 2 referring to the averments made in the repiy has categoricaily stated that order dated 27/6/08 does not intend to withdraw order dated 29/2/08 but that order has been issued only in the context of implementation, application and operation of Governmenfs Scale Promotion Poiicy and it should not intend withdrawing benefits in respect of which orders have already been passed on 29/2/08, in compliance of the order passed by this Court on petitions filed by the petitioner. 5. The grievance ofiearned counsel forthe petitioner is that even though the orders were passed by this Court for granting benefit or fifth pay scale and even though the respondents have been passing order that the benefits would be extended, till date, fuii benefits have not been paid and only some amount has been paid whereas the six monthiy instaltments are not being paid. He submits that in the spirit of the order passed by this Court eariier, in the case of the petitioner and in the petition riied hy the organisation, the Government ought to have paid the arrears in six monthiy installments from the date of the order. 6. The respondents have not only passed orders but categorically stated in their return that according to the avaiiability of budget, necessary benefits wouid be released to the petitioner. The statements made with regard to order dated ffi» ^ 27/06/08 is piaced on record that the same does not amount to withdrawing the benefit as per order of this Court passed on 12/4/07 in W.P.No.4090/05 in respect of which subsequentiy, an order was issued on 29/2/08 (Annexure R/4). it is aiso stated at the bar by learned counsei for the respondent that writ appeai against order dated 6/2/07 passed in W.P. No.4108/05 (Smt. A. Lali v. State of C.G. and others) is stil! pending consideration. 7. In view of the submissions made by iearned counsel for the respondents •and categoric averments made, which have been recorded hereinabove, in my opinion, no wiilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, appears to have been committed. Though, it appears that because of financial constraint, ten six monthly installments are being reieased as and when budgetary provision is being made, considering that the contempt petition fiied eariier was finally disDosed off bv this Court vide order dated 14/3/08 in Contempt Petition No.33/08 recording that orders have been complied with and respondent purged the contemDt and there is nothing on record to show that on earlier occasion, orders have been withdrawn or anything done contrary to that, no contempt can be said to have been committed. Rule is therefore discharged. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents are duty bound to compiy with the order and release six monthly instaliments at the eariiest. Needless to emphasize that the order of this Court is to grant benefit in ten six monthly instaitments and the respondents are obliged under the law to compiy with the same in its true spirit. The petition is finatly disposed off. Sd-/ Manin',^.Md.»^,v^v. Deepft Judge