@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION N0. 33 OF 2008 PETITIONER Vs RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. K.R. Verma. S/o Late Shri Bholaurara Verma, aged about 59 years, Head Clerk/ Accountant, Seth Ratan Chand Surana Arts/Science College, Durg, District, Durg (CG) Shri K.D. P. Rao, Secretary and Commissioner, Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Shri A.K. Pandey, Deputy Director of Higher Education Govt. Science College, College Campus, Raipur (CG) Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Principal Seth Ratan Chand Surana Arts/Science College, Durg District Durg (CG) Present: Mr. Utkarsh Verma and Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Abhisek Sinha, Adv. for the respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D. Guru, AdVocate for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Ajay Thakre, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. Contemnors are also present in person. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th March, 2008) Dhirendra Mishra, The petitioner has filed this petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents with the averments that Writ Petition No. 4090/2005 (Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Mahavidhyalin Ashaikshinak Karmchari Sangh -v- State of Chhattisgarh and another) was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12th April, 2007 with an observation that for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 6-2-2007 passed in W.P. No. 4108/2005 (Smt. A. Lall -v- State of Chhattisgarh and other connected matters), the writ petition is allowed in the same terms and conditions and in the Writ Petition No. 4108/2005, it was held that the persons like the petitioners are entitled for a revised pay-scales as per 5th Pay Commission's recommendations with effect from 1-1-1996. The Contemnors in compliance of the order passed in W.P. No. 4090/2005, revised the pay-scale of the petitioner and started granting him pay-scale of 4500-125-7000/- till September, 2007, however, subsequently, his pay- scale was reduced at Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. He filed W.P. (S) No. 100/2008 (K.R. Verma -v- State of Chhattisgarh and others) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 8-1-2008 (Annexure C-4) with an observation that the authorities are obliged to comply with the order passed by the High Court and the petitioner was also granted liberty to make representation before the concerned authorities. He submitted his representation on 14-1-2008, however the same has not been decided. They are not extending benefit of revised pay-scale with effect from 1-1-96 and the State Oovernment has issued orders dated 2-1-2007/13-7-2007 wherein it is mentioned that non-teaching employees of the 100% ^'t Uig- ;r:^'-^ /^ '^•s.aot.T'''' Govt. aided private colleges be extended the benefit of revised pay-scale with effect from 1-10-2006 and they should not be entitled for any arrears prior to 1-10- 2006. 2. At the outset, the respondent No. 1, K.R. Verma, who is present in Court, has tendered unqualified apology for any contempt committed by the State in compliance of order dated 6th February, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 4108/2005. The order has already been passed by the department on 29-2-2008 by granting difference amount to the petitioner with effect from 1-1-96 till September, 2006 as a result of revised pay-scale payable in 10 six monthly installments (Annexure R-2) and the delay in complying with the above order is due to procedure and approval of Department of Finance. Copies of Orders A-2 have been duly circulated to the concerned institutions for compliance. Contemnor No. 1 also informed that Higher Education Department of Government of Chhattisgarh ,vide order dated 12-3-2008 has amended the department order dated 29-2-2008 and has deleted paragraph 3 of the Department Memo No. F 36-22/ 2004/ 38/ Higher Education dated 25-5-2007. 3. The Contemnor No. 2, in his counter affidavit has tendered unqualified apology and has stated that fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner is done by the .^I.SB^ ^:^ ^' ^' " '^ ,••'•.;•;.^1'^'''""^'.--. ^l!'- "^"•'/h&K'^^. ^ Directorate and, therefore, his representation could not be decided by him. 4. The Contemnor No. 3, in his separate reply, has taken a stand that the representation of the petitioner could not be decided by him alone unless the decision is taken by the Contemnors No.l and 2. He has also made allegations against the petitioner that he was working as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the College from 15-12- 1981 and was responsible for preparation of salary Bill of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college and to manage the accounts of the college and, therefore, all the records were kept in the custody of the petitioner. He made some changes in his pay-scale in the month of February, 2001 and raised his pay-scale without any approval of the State Government. It Was further changed on Salary bill of November, 2001. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the reply filed by the respondent No. 3, he has filed his rejoinder which may also be taken on record. He further argued that the revised pay-scale has been made payable from 1-10-2006 by the order of this Court whereas pay-scale of 4500-7000/- was granted to the petitioner from the month of July, 2007 and thereafter the pay-scale was reduced from Rs. 4500-7000 to Rs. 4000-6000/-. He further argued that considering the above act of the respondent No. 3, he had filed Writ :i»Ksl9i v \ "\ * ^y/ Petition No. 100/2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 8-102008 with a direction that the authorities have to comply with the order passed by this Court and the petitioner was granted liberty to make appropriate representation before the authorities concerned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Prom the reply of Respondent No. 1 and the orders passed by the State which has been referred to hereinabove, the orders passed by this Court in W.P. 4108/2005 and W.P. No. 4090/2005 stand complied with and the respondent No. 1 has purged the contempt by complying the order though belatedly. However, taking into consideration that the respondent No. 1 had tendered unqualified apology at the first instance and he has also purged the contempt, the apology is accepted. 8. So far as respondents No. 2 and 3 are concerned, in the absence of any decision by the State to extend the benefit of 5th Pay Commission to the petitioner, they were not competent to comply with the order of this Court. So far as the allegations of Respondent No. 3 in his reply that the petitioner by misusing his position as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the college has increased his pay-scale without approval of the State Government, are concerned, it is open to the petitioner to make ;',' XiSk •? "^ ^ representation before the authorities against any action taken by the college administration on the above ground and the above dispute cannot be the subject matter of the contempt petition. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, no further proceeding is called for in these circumstances and the same is accordingly dropped. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- DhirendraMishra <f;