COCP No. 1936 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1936 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 8.9.2010 Shish Ram and others ......petitioners vs. Ram Lal Sachdeva ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for applicant-petitioner Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has undertaken to pay the salary to the petitioner at par with the employees holding corresponding posts in Government schools w.e.f 1.9.1999. It is contended that though the benefit of pay has been given at par with the employees of the Government schools but the benefit of revised pay scale consequent to Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 has not been granted. Therefore, the management has violated the undertaking given to this Court. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners claimed a writ of mandamus to grant pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in CWP No. 4703 of 1999. The undertaking before this Court was in terms of the agreement which was reduced in writing. The said agreement (Annexure R-1) is to implement the grades of the Fifth Pay Commission. It is contended that there is no undertaking to pay revised pay COCP No. 1936 of 2009 -2- scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Therefore, the undertaking given before this Court on 3.8.1999 can not be interrupted and extended so as to include the grant of pay scale as revised from time to time to the petitioners. The order passed by this Court, on 3.8.1999, which is said to be violated by the respondent reads as under: - Petitioners were working as teacher at the Holi Child Public School, Rewari. Their services were terminated by orders, copies of which have been produced as annexures P/6 to P/11. Petitioners pray that the orders terminating their services be quashed and that they be granted the pay scales as sanctioned by the Haryana Government for the employees of Government Schools with effect from January 1996. Notice of motion was directed to be issued Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 despite service. Proceeded ex-parte. Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate states that the impugned orders of termination have been withdrawn. The management has also agreed to pay the petitioners salary at par with the employees holding corresponding posts in the Government Schools with effect from July 1, 1999. He further states even an agreement has been executed in writing. A copy of this agreement as produced by the counsel is taken on record as Mark-A. He states that the agreement is only on one page. In view of the above, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The relevant clause of the agreement of which reference is made reads as under: - The party No. 1 has agreed to implement the grades of Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.7.1999. Initially the basic salary plus due increment will be given. As soon as the financial conditions of the school improved the D.A and H.R.A will also be implemented. The reading of the agreement and the statement made in the Court would lead to an inference that the undertaking was to grant benefit of Fifth Pay Commission only. Even if the undertaking is to be interpreted, it cannot be said that respondent has violated the undertaking given to this COCP No. 1936 of 2009 -3- Court so as to disclose a contempt on the basis of an undertaking which is capable of two interpreters. An order which is subject to interpretation cannot be said to be the subject matter of a contempt. In view of the said fact, I do not find any ground to initiate the contempt proceedings. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to establish their right in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 8.9.2010 preeti