f- 2^/' ><;'. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR iNO._3ir3 /2009 CONTEMPTCASE (CIVIL) N0. (S.B.) APPLICANT : , - Thalkumari, W/o Shri Mangal Singh, \OC).-'''^-:..,'>J^ •3.^.P"^^.A"" Aged about 62 years, Occupation - Refired . . .. ...•••'"'^"."a.A-T" s-l- (M). Resident of Lalbag, Jagadalpur, ••• ,;»,<\ •' ^'^.•) District - Jagadalpur (Chhattisgarh) ^-;^\^r. ^:y"^-- t!^'"" NON.APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. CONTEMNORS 2. J.S. Watti, Commandant, 5th Bn. I.C. Range Police, M.T. Workshop, Jagadalpur (C.G.) IVI.S. Paikra, Director, Treasury, Audit and Accounts, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(C.G.) R.P.S. Chouhan, ' Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and pensjon, Jagadalpur, District - Bastar (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION UNDERARTICLE2150FTHE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA READ WITH SECTION12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.1971 FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. ^ p. •\ \ RE! ''•i t;^i";';. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Mlanindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Applicant Non-applicants Contemnors Contempt Case (Civil) No.343/2009 Thalkumari Versus J. S. Watti and others ApDlication under Article 215 ofthe Constitytion of India read with Section 12 atthe Contemflt of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt oroceedHT<is Present:- Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, counsel r'or non-applicant No.1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for non-applican'.s No.2 & 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27-09-2011; This petition has been filed by the applicariS alleging willful disobedience of order dated 07-05-2009 passed by this Court i,~ *he case of the applicant and batch of writ petitions. 2. Leained counsel for the aoiilicant submitted that the order was issued on 29-07-2006 (Annexure C-1) directing that wrong fixation of pay has bsen made, which should be withdrawn and recovery sho!;ld be made. That order was assailed by all thos®,who were adversely affected including the applicant. In a bateh of writ petitions preferred by all those aggrieved persons including the applicant, legallty and validity of the order dated 23-07-2006 was examined and the order dated 29-07-2006 was quashed with a dirsction that the amount, if any, deducted be. paid to the writ petitioners with siinp'e interest, reserving liberty to the respondents therein to take appropriate stsps, after complying with the principles of natural justice in accordance with ths Ru!e 65 of the Chhattisgarh . Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. \: -2. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the effect of setting aside the order dated 29-07-2006 was not only to declare order of recovery illegal, but also the decision with regard to fixation of pay in appropriate pay scale, and therefore, the pay, which the applicant was drawing in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, was liable to be protected. Learned counsel further submitted that vide memo dated 06-11-2009, the pension of the applicant is proposed to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, even then, the non-applicant No.1 has refused to provide pension to the applicant and has returned pension papers with instructions to reduce the pay scale ofthe applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit ts that in view of the order passed on 07-05-2009 in the writ petition filed by the applicant and batch of petitions, pensibn of the applicant is liable to be paid on the basis of Last Pay Certificate of pay given in pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and by not fixing the pension on the basis ofthat pay scale, the non-applicant No.1 has acted in willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that though vide order dated 23-02-2011, earlier order dated 07-05-2009 has been clarified, against the order passed in review petitions, a writ appeal has been preferred, which is pending consideration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicants submitted that the non-applicants have not committed any willful disobedience of the Court order. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that the only issue decided by this Court, vide order dated 07-05-2009, was with regard to validity of recovery. It is submitted that the order dated 29-07-2006 was set aside, because it was found that by the said order, recovery was sought to be made without affording any opportunity of hearing. He further submits that later on, this aspect has been clarified vide order dated 23-02-201 1 passed in the review petitions filed by the State, wherein, it has been observed that there is no direction for fixation of pay scale, as the said issue was neither raised nor argued at the time of hearing of writ petition, though, pleading was made in the writ petition. Thus, without '^t, '^ Tumane ^ pressing the issue, as the same was given up during the course ofarguments, no decision on the question of fixation of pay was taken and no direction has been issued. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the order, which has been passed on 23-02-2011 in a batch of review petitions, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the Court decided the claim of the applicant with regard to her entitlement on a particular pay scale much less pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. In the absence of there being any adjudication or any specific direction by the Court to give that particular pay scale to the petitioner, 1 am not inclined to hold that the non- applicants have acted in willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 07-05-2009. The other submissions, which have been made by learned counsel for the applicant, based on the merits that the applicant is entitled to pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and also entitled to fixation of pay on the basis of last pay certificate based on payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, as reflected vide memo dated 06-11-2009, would only entitle the applicant to file petition claiming such relief. Learned counsel for the applicant apprehended that as earlier, writ petition was filed, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file contempt petition vide order dated 30-11-2009 in W.P.(S)No.7011 of 2009, he may be remedy less. The apprehension is not well founded. In this contempt petition, it has now been held that no contempt is made out. Rule is therefore discharged. 6. In view offoregoing, the petition is finally disposed off. The applicant would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy available to him under the law, if he claims that pension has been fixed on the basis of wrong fixation of pay scale. __— —-— Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge \ lyiTTES] -i