IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CONtEMPT PETITION N0. l0'> / 2007 PETmONER ..L-- R(i3» y^£.Jain, S/o ShriK.L. Jain, 46 yrs. General Education Teacher, uovi. Engineering College, Bilaspur, R/o Baagalipara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.j Versus ^ hri A.K. Gadhewal, Rrincipal Govt.EngineeringCoUege, Bilaspur ^ ,__^--.—-nt<5m-n3NU/S 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OP C_QURTS ACT m--Vf"^r?) ' ~~- ~~~~ • ~—• ~ -' l;'d / READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THfi CONSTJTUTJON OFINDIA 1. '' l^ K;;'i*S'>^^-f;: HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SinaleBench:Hon'bleShriManindraMohanSKrivastava^J, ConteniDtPetitionNo.105/2007 ; Petitioner Respondent V. K.Jain Versus ShriA. K.Gadhewal and another <•,' 'l^.^ (Application underSection 12oftheCohtemptQfC6urtsActreadwith Article 215 ofthe CpnstitutiOn pf Iridia) Present: - Shri Prafull Bharat;counsel forthe petitioner. Shri T. K. Tiwari, CounselforrespondentNo.l. Shri Pallav Mishra, counselfor respondent No.2 ORAL ORDER (Passed on14-03-2011) This contempt petition has been filed, by the petitioner alleging willful disobedienceoforderdated 13-02-2007 pasSed by thisCourt inW.P.No.3317of 2004 (Annexure C-2). f -/ ' ' 2. . The petitidner had filed a v»rit petjtiori fcir issuSincg of a^direction to thei res^ndents trterein fqr grant <if arinual increments. ^he'Ayditional^^^^^ Tecnftical Education, Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Raipur vidg its Qrder^daled 23-i 06-2006 (Annexure P-12 filed in thewrit petition^ directetl^hie/respDnilenfcN&l-j tHe.Principal t6 take steps fbr grant crf annualinGrem6nts,,as^F^ the law/to the ad hoc teachers.The grievance raised;bgfore this COtii'tWastlTat despitefhesaiddirectionissuedQn 23-06-20t)6; tl^'Princi|?al'has''hi3td6ne;tWe 'needful. ' ^ ,:•.• ,, :: " ,,..• .:':.':s'^:::'^l.':,?/::: '•:.''•'^ 3. ' The aforesaid petition was finally disposeci^^vide^oi^gr^ 2007. Thesubrnjssion offte petiti©her;that^eS[3iteitl|e2dir|cti(3nti^USd^8i"i^23-06- 2006,: needful has?not:beenj(lGne|a!nEt^y:biTiissioK^may s:-w,.sfiwr'!iy'ss::::'5;»i'-'':-i:u-:-ssf's<:l^&-yaw^.:w- 2- ^ the respondents that a direction to the respondent No.3 for cdnsideration and disposal of the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law would sub-serve the purpose. The petition was finally disposed bffwith a directionto respondentNO.3 therein/respondent No.lin this Case, fo comply with the Qrderdated 23-06-2006 in accordance with law ahd to pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. 4. The case of the petitioher is that the respohdent No.1 did not comply with the Order 6f the Court ahd the increments, which were duly admissible t0 him, as directed under grder dated 23-06-2006, werenot paid to the petitioherwithinthe tirne^stipulated. Learned counse! for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent Nb.l-Priricipal on one pretext or the other kept bn unnecessarily .A?::''" : ;•'.'.: .;..'• •' . •• • • ' . • ' . '. ""'.. . •. '. '.'.:.... ..'. Gdrresponding with the higher authorities, even fhough, it was riot necessary for him. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.1 deliberately flouted the order of the Court and did notgrarit the benefit of annual increment to the ;petitibner in respectof the period ofad hocserviee, even though orderdated 23- 06-2006 clearlystated for grant of benefit of annual increments in respeet ofthe peridd of ad hoc service. Learned counsel vehemently submitted fhat the mafter hg& remained pehding before this Gourt and oh one pretext or the blher, the respondent No.1 kept on delayihg the matter and though durihg the penden6y df the petition, annual inCFements in respect of the ceftain period, have been ^^•^ ._ .', released, for substantial period of ad hoc service, incremenfs have'Tlot been relea d,tilldate.Learned(xiunselfurthersubrnittedthatdUrihgfhepenclency6t ^ • . '.'..'" '••••. '. , ' • • '• • • '•'• •• : . the petitiori, looking to the Conduct of respopdent N6.2, he was also irFtpleaded as, party as respondent No.2, who created obstruction ahd complicated the mafter in such a way that the order of the Court could not be complied with. Learhed counsel also sybmitted that during the penderrcy of the petititin^andrder :.was Fassedby^tie r6SRondentNp.26n:29^3^0QS;(^nnexyre-<3)^^^ Kv benefits, which were to flow in favour offhe petitioner, were annulled, which according tothe petitioner, is highly contemptuous. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondentNo.1 submitted that the respondentNo.l always acted towards eompliance of the orderdated 13-02- 2007 passed by the Court. Learned counsel submittedthat the direction of this Courtwas to comply with the order dated 23-06-2006 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order withih a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt 6f copy of the order. The petftioner submitted a repres^ntation on 20-02-2007. By passing an Order dated 23-06-2006 (Annexure C-1), the Additional DirectOr, Directorate of Technical EduGation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, directed the responderit No.1-the Principal td take action for admitting annual incrementsin respect of the period of ad hoc service, as per rules. The responderit No.1 proceeded to comply with the order by writing a memo dated 08-03-2007 to the Additional Directorstating thaf the petitioner was posted at Ratanpur and the respondent No.1 was only Drawing and Disbursing Authority and there competent authority to adrriit benefits of increments vested with the AdditiOna] Director, Directorate ofTechnical Educatioh, Raipur, ChhattiSgarh, and therefore, he^asnQtGompetentauthorityforfixationofpay.AccordingtQ respondeht No.1, the letter dated 23-06-2006 (Annexure C-1 ) required him to act as per rules, therefore, respondent No.1, within a period of four weeks as directed by the Cburt.complied with the directions in so far as his role Js cohcemSd-LeaFned coynsel further submits that the Directpr had required the regporiclent No.1 t6 make available the relevant rec8rds of the petitioner, which were made available tp him. He further submits that the respondent N0.1 made several correspondences with fhe higher authorities and fully complied with the order of the Gourt. He further submits that after the pay of the petitioner ahd inGrementS were approved by the higher authority after prolonged correspondence, the V NBl ^t respondent No.1 issued a letter to the petitioner on 27-02-2008 (Annexure-A) regarding submission of account statement for paymentof claimof the petitioner and upon submission of same by the petitioner as well as on the basis of letter dated 09-02-2007, 01-03-2008 issued by the Director, Technical Education, Raipur, the respondeht No.1 prepared bill forthe period of 14-11-2003 till 24-05- 2005 and thereafter, finally, an amount of Rs.52,878/- towards annualincrements was sanctioned, and it was deposited with the bank account 6f the petitioner through cheque vide Ahnexure-F. Thereafter, with regard to paymentdf balance amount of thepetitioner, which were still to be settled, an order was initially passed on 29-03-2008 (Annexure-G) by the Director, canceling earlier order 6f grant of annual increment for the ad hoc period of service. That order was.later ^on, withdrawn videanotherOrderdated 03-04-2008. Thereafter, a memo was written on 05-04-2008 by the respondent No.l-PrineipaltotheDirectortofixthe annual incremerits and send the same for immediate payment to the petitioner. However, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pensiohvide its letterdated 08- 05-2008 raised certain objection withregardtoadmissibilityofannualincrennents in respectof the period of ad hoc service and finally the matter was referred to the Finance Department by the State Government vide memo dated 02-08-2008. ^ The State Government informed the Director that the matter would be finally settled after receiving instructions from the Finance Department. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, submits that he has nbt committed any QDrtempt. . . •\~ • • . ' • . '6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2.submitted that the direction was given by this Court to fhe respondent No.1 to comply with the orderdated 23-06- 2006 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order. The respohderit No;1 unnecessarily entered into the various correspondences orilywith a viewto delay thie matter and shifted the burden on respondent No.2. Amem6datgd 05-03- /• •G 2007 (Annexure R-3) was written to the Principal for sending entire details and information relating tb annual increments. Thereafter, anothet mems was written on 22-03-2007 (Annexure C-7) directing the responderif No. 1; to ccirnply with the orderof the Courtfollowed by memodated 08-05-2007 (AnneXureR-2/2) and memo dated 05-01-2008 (AnneXure R-2/3). Time and again directions were given by fhe Director, Tectinical Educatifln tothe respQhderfl: No.1-the Principal to take immediate steps to finally decide the case 6f the petjtioner with regard t6 grant ofannual increments. It is further submitted that though initially, during the pendency of thie petition, an order was issued^on 29-03-2008 regardinggrant af annual increments, tsut the same was subsequehfly witHdrawh vid^ order dated 03-04-2008. Itisthen submitted thateven though, all the Sanctionswere granted ^as ahd when demaridgd by the petitioner from time to time itiorder to facilitate 'grarit of anhual incremehts to the petitioner in respect of the acl Moc peridd, certain ohjections have been raised bythe Jdint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pensioh and the State Government has referred fhe mafter t6 the Finance . Department. . 7. The pefitioner had filed the petition claiming grantdfannfual incremen'ts in i;6sp6ct ofthe period, during which, he remained in sid hocservice. Ortler dated; 13-02-2007 passedbyWis CourtShowslhat thie petitioner's claimwas basedon letter dated 23-06-2006 issued by the Directorate df Technical Education, Raipur, C.G. (Annexure C-1). The grievance raised befdre this Court thaf despife'the'- ). " : • '. .: : . . 1;'.: ; ' :. .. . , direction dated 23-06-2006, the respondent Nb.l-Principal of the College has not .'\' •'.'.•."..' '.'.••'•''•.'••• •'••'-.•••:.•••• . - •• '•. ': ' :.'-;.-' • '.. . ••'••• 'done the needful. A statementwas made By learried coiihsel for'the respondents that the directions may be issued for cohsideration and disposal of the case 6f th& petitioner. In the light of such statemeht made by tearned cciunsel forth^; respondents, the petition was finally disposed off with a clirection to r&sporident; Nb.1-the Principal bf the Cbllege, to comply with the order dated 23-06-2006 ih! .^&.s:;^ ;y s» ss» ' ' 's./' '\^y -./' '../ 6 accordance with the law and to pass appropriate order within a period Of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.A perusal df letter dated 23-06-2006 (Annexure C-1) shows that the Directorate of Technical Education directed the respondent No.l/Principalofthe College to take action as per rules inthe matter ofgrantofannual increments in respect of the period of ad hoc service. Therefore, the letter dated 23-06-2006 required the Principal to take action as per rules towardssanction of annual incremehts in respectof the period 6f ad hoc service. Order of the Court was submitted before the respohdent No.1 on 20-02-2007 by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 thereafter wrote a lefter to the Additional Director on 08-03-2007 (Annexure R-4) stating that he is not competent to makefixation of pay in respect oftheperiod ofad hoc service of the petitioner, while the petifioner was posted and workedatiRatanpur.beGause at that point of time, he was only a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, whereas the competent authbrity was only the Additional Director in the Directorate of Technical Education. In fact, the Directorate wrote a letter oh 05-03-2007 (Annexure R-3) received bytherespondentNo.lon 09-03-2007, whichrequired the respondentNo.1 to send complete details with regard to working period of the petitioner in respect of the period of ad hocservice and the information relating to increments to the DireGtorate. On the date when the respondeht No.1 issued a letter dated 8-03-2007 (Annexure R-4), memo dated 05-03-2007 (Annexure R-3) was not received, but it was received dn 09-03;2007. On 22-03-2007, the respondent No.1 sent complete details to the Additional Director. 8. Thereafter, number of Gorrespondences took place between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 with regard t6 finalizatibn of the case 6f the petitioner for grant of annua] increments and the matter remained pending between the two respohdents.At one point oftime, fhe respondent No.2 passed an order on 29-03-2008 seeking to withdraiw the benefits of grant of arinual .^i^-^.-~^S^;.1 l%s-^f "aS3;M.;y<e* v -7- increments in respect ofthe period ofad hoe service, but lateron, thesamewas withdrawn also vide another order dated 03-04-2008. Though, during the pendency of the petitioh, a part of the petitioner's claim has been stated to have been satisfied. An objection having raised by the Joint Directdr vide his memo dated 08-05-2008, and having referredthe matter to the State Government, the State Government informed to the Directorate vide its memo dated 02-08-2008 that the matter was forwarded to the Finahce Department for obtaining guidance/cdnsent in the case of the petitioner, and thereafter, necessary steps would be taken. 9. The directioh issued by this Court for respohdent N6.1 to ccjmply with the lejtter dated 23-06-2006 (Annexure C-1). There was n6 directipn fdr payment Qr release of increments in respect of the ad hoc period as such. Letfer dated 23- 06-2006 obliged the respondent No.1 to actin accordance with the rules towards sanction of annual increments to the petitioner. The reSpondent No.1 vide his m.emo dated 08-03-2007, informed the higher authority that he was not competent authority as the period, in respect ofwhich, annual increments have to be granted, related to the petifioner's pbsting at Ratahpur and the respondent y ' : : : ! No;1 was not competentto grant sanction. 10. In the opimon of this Cpurt, in these circumstances and taking ihto consideration that the case of the petitioner for grant 6f annual ine-rgmentS ferwarded by the respondent No.1 to the Directorate and finally the entirp claim ofthe petitionerwas prepared and send fo the Joint Director, Treasury, Accpunts & Pension, though with delay, 1 am unable t6"'come to the conclusion that fhe respondent No.1 is guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the Courf. As far as respondent No.2 is concerned, various correspondences,;which have been placed on record sHows t^t tlw lettere w^ issued fr<j the'^^^D^ iii»»BiS ^:\>-*^' i ^-. . . ^i^/^. "'^f.... "^--^" ^ s respondentNo.1 to finalize the claim of the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner was finally sanctioned for grant of annual ihcrement. Mowever, because of the objection raised by the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension and in view of the State Government's decision to referthe matter to the Finance Department, fihal payments could not be made. Though, the respondent No.2 issyed a letter on 29-03-2008 with regard togrant of annualinGrements, the same has also been withdrawn subsequently vide letter dated 03-04-2008, and the FespondentN6.2 hasalso tendered apologyfor thesame. 11. Inview ofthe aforesaid discussion, l am not inclined tb proceed further against (he responclenfs and the rule js dischargey. Before parting wittt the case, it is made clear tltat this Court has not commented upon tHe cbrrectness dr plherwise, 6f the petititiner's claim. If the petitioner's claim have ndt been finally settled becauseofthe objection raised bythe Joint DirectoF, Treasury, Accounts &Pensionvidememodated 08-05-2008 andthe matter have been referred tQ the Finance Department 6f State;Government as has been discltised in its mem8 dated 02-08-2008 written to the Director, TechhiGal Educatioh, it will be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such legal remedy as may be available to him uni|erthe law. 12. Accordingly.thepetitionisfihallydispbsedoff. . . Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane