M IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. (o^ 2-tfl{ <. oFae^e. APPLICANTS PETITIONERS :1, ..-••• ^^^••^-< 'r^?'"---' ^-IrA' -1> Dr. M. S. Patel, Son of Shri T. R. Patel, aged about 45 years, Assistant Professor, Govt. College Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District Durg (C. G.) Basant Kumar Patel, Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Pate, aged about 52 years, Assistant Professor, Govt. P. G. College Korba, District Korba (C. G.) Smt. Purnima Sahu, W/o. Shri Arvind Sahu, aged about 47 years, Assistant Professor, Minimata Girls Govt. College Korba, District Korba (C. G.) VE RS U S s^ RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR '^ N. D. Bhoyar Under Secretary, Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) ^ CONTEMPT CASE fC) UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READWITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT /, \ ^ ^ ~3~^r -^ii4ldq. yTl1^4i<s. rQi<ni^li< STT^T ^^K ^^t' 6^/)^(6.)i^Q' ^//i 200 'f^sr" v^ -^[W^ ^r^lcfr ^STT^T^T f^tli<=b 3T(^T 9h+iich Trii^I ^TT^T '^IT^R ^f^a SB : Hon'bie Shri Maninanra Mohan S 24-02-2011 decided Shri Somkant Verma, counsel fo{ This contempt petition has beeiti the respondent has issued a show cau^ cancei the piacement of the petitioners according to the entitlement of the petlti|; !t is submitted by learned cour| petjtioners were granted higher pay ^c initiated proceedlngs to show cause petitioners in pay scajes and proposed this issue was eariier raised and petitioners in O.A.No.465/99, 466/9^ (Annexure C/1). He submits that the p^ In thepay scale was aiiowed and the| consider the case of the petitioners in t^ Court and Benches of ivl.P. S.A.T. arfi petitioner from the prescribed period the pay accordingiy. He submits that| pemioners were granted jncrement on| appointed on emergency basis. He attempt on the part of the respondent| cancel the existing piacement of the over reaching the orders passed by th4 to be proceeded against cases for cort and Tribunai. <^i1Lit<n<flri 'RP^'? ft^ <p3i<^i< iT3tf^R3TI^T irivastava, J. the petitioners. filed by the petitloners alteging that |e notice on 4/12/10 (Annexure C/2) to |n various pay scaies and fix the same lOners. |sei for the petitioners that once the ^cale, the resDondent could not have |to cancel existing piacement of the jrevision of the same. He submits that by the Tribunal in the case of the and 503/99 decided on 27/09/99 )^titionerss entitlement to get increment Irespondents therein were directed to ^rms ofthe orders passed by the High 1)d to grant annuai increments to the cf increment with ail arrears and to fix in compiiance of the said order, the the pay scaies on which, they were in view of the said order, the to issue fresh show cause notice to jDetitioners In pay scaies, amounts to Tribunal and the respondent is ilable ttempt of iawfui authority of the Court sulbmits that f-it^ ^7^ >'a -HC-22 -STI^T^T [<-ii<=b sn^r 9h^ich ^[i^l '^ Deepti -^cT -^ij^ld^. ^Tfl^^l^. ^Qll^y ^^ ^l^^ll 9b^l<=h STT^T xra"^ 62^0^- [^-J /^->o' ^ ^ / II *^ 200 •^^sr' 3TT^T'^H3[R Trf^T -^ chl^(<n<4)l 'RTR^ff ^ f^T2t iPsl^K ^ ^Tf^FT'3TT^T The assertion or iearned cour) on the order dated 27/09/99 passed and 503/99. The reading of the approached the TribunaE aggrieved] ^sei for the petitioners is primarily based >y the Tribunai in O.A.No.465/99, 466/99 ^aid order shows that the petltioners on account of non'-Davment of annua! increment from the initiai date of app|ointment even they were continuing their services without any break. The Tri^unai reiying upon the order passed by it in other cases heid that the petition^rs are entitied to annual increment. in that petition, the Tribunai did not de|;iare the entltJement of the petltioners to senior or seiection grade pay sc^ie. That issue was neither ralsed nor considered by the Tribunai. The sho^ cause notice dated 4/12/10 shows that the same has been issued requiringl their piacements in pay scale be[ appropriate pay scaie according to tr( notices deals with entirely dlfrerent| petitioners1' annua! increment on the tlme of fiiing the petitions before the In the oplnion of this Court,| 4/12/2010 does not amount to wi!ifu| the order passed by the Tribunai on| wouid be at liberty to take recourse the petjtloners to show cause as to why not cancelled and be piaced in the icir eiigibiiity. Therefore, the show cause issue and has nothina to do with the ^ay scaie which they were drawing at the 'ribunai. issuance of show cause notice dated dlsobedience or an act of over reaching 27/09/99 in O.A.No.465/99, 466/99 and 503/99 fjled by the petitloners. if t|ie petitioners have any grievance, they to such remedy as may be availabie to them undertheiaw. With the aforesaid observatior|s, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. }- Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Tfr^^n^