c.^<f IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CONTEMPTCASE fCV N0. or,OF 2010 PETITIONERS ^ <1^ V^S^ f ^^ ..^ >" \.^' ^•"' ^~-" .^ j£v 1. ^' / ^. ..^<^ —v^. .^^^y .° J3^—, NDENTS: EMNORS 2. 1. Ram Prasad Singh Son of Late Yamuna Singh, aged about 67 years, Caste Kshatriya (Retired Teacher), Resident of Village Khorma, Post Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). Ram Chandra Rai Son of Late Rajnarayan Rai, aged about 67 years, Caste Bramhin (Retired Teacher), Resident of Village Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). Sudarshan Ram YadavSon of Late Rajaram Yadav, aged about 67 years, Caste Ahir (Retired Teacher), Resident .of Village Tukudand, Police Station Masga, District Surguja (C.G.). Maniram Kashyap Son of Late Dhanushdhari Ram, aged about 66 years, Caste Kanhar (Retired Teacher), Resident of Vitlage Sauntar, Post Semnarkala, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Mr. Nand Kumar, aged about 55 years, Secretary,^ School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). INJllEJdON pETmQNEP ^. \^:>"^ y-i^ ^ ..•••' -^ "'^ ^yy' •o:*.--"" '^y ^v .-^ ^y^ ^y 1^<^^ ^'^' O^at^aor Mo<il y ^° Kr, 8»P«Ma^dal» aged atoout 55 f@s£Sf SeeK©fes!ssr»SChooX S^eetio®.R^aJgte-gda-t, D<.K<S« Iter'awsa'* Sa^pa-l? <G*Q»)• T 5. Mr. Sunil Kujur, aged about 50 years, Director, Public Instructions, Raipur (C.G.). Mr. R. K. Verma, aged about 52 years, Joint Director (Treasury, Accounts and Pension), Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Mr. R. P. Badgotya, aged about 53 years, District Education Officer, Educational District Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Mr. Vijayendra, aged about 55 years, Secretary, Finance Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ~215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR S.B. : HON*BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN 8HRIVASTAVA, J. Contempt Case (Ct No. 108 of 2010 PETITIONBRS Ram Prasad Singh & Ors. RESPONDENTS Versus Mr. Nand Kumar & Ors. Contemnors Petition u/Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia r/w Section 10 fis 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act Appearance: Shri Ashok Kumar Shulda, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, counsel for respondentNo.4. ORAL-QBDBR (Passed on 23.02.2011) Heard. 2. This Court had earMer issued notices to respondents No. 1 & 4. Later on, the petitioners deleted fhe name ofrespondent No. 1 and in his place, a new respondent-contemnor No.l was unpleaded. However, no notice has been issued to the said respondent. ( • ' • * 3. In view offhe reply filed by respondent No.4,1 am not incltned to issue riotice to any ofh.er respondent. 4. The grievance of ttie petitioners is that vide order dated 25th March, 2008 passed in W.P. (S) no. 1782/08, the petition was ^ allowed subject to verification of facts that the petitioners are \ entitled to 2nd kramonnati after completion of 24 yearsof service, ^•^\ ^ &. ". t ^I^S^ 1 ^^^^it£.t-^t\ ^ ^ JJ \s^ "^^:^ -2- •^- ^ in accordance with the cu-cular dated 24.4.2007 read with 17.3.1999/19.4.1999. 5. Submission of leamed counsel for the petitioners is that whUe deciding the claim of the petitioners for gmnt of 2nd kramonnati upon completion of 24 years of service, it was also held, referrmg to the order passed in the case of State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. K.K. Roy (2004 SCW 1) that the petitioners are entitled to grant of two higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of his joining of fhe service and the ofher upon expiry of 24 years thereof. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners, therefore, submitted fhat that fhe respondents-contemnors, while deciding tlie claim of fhe petitioners for grant of 2nd kramonnati upon completion of 24 years, ought to have granted the benefit from the date ofjoining ofthe service, which has not been done. He submits that vide order dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure R -4/1), though ttie benefit of 2nd kramonnati has been granted, but fhe same has been granted w.e.f. 19.4.1999, whereas, it should be granted from fhe respectiye dates upon completion of 24 years of service to be reckoned from first date ofjoinuig in service. 6. On ttie other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent submits that the issue as to the date from which the 2nd kramonnati is to be granted, was neither raised nor decided. He submits that fhe petitioners approached fhe Court claiming that they are entitled to 2nd kramonnati upon completion of 24 years of sendce. He Sjj -^ 1 ^s^ -3- '^^ v^y Ul further submits fhat reUance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Trlpura (supra) & the order passed by fhis Court in fhe case of Arjun Sing^i Thakur Vs. Tke State of Chhattisgarh & Ors (W.P. (S) 5995/06) was in support of fhe contention that fhe petitioners are entitled to 2nd kramonnati and not with regard to the exact date from which such benefit shaU be granted. He further submits that ftie Court allowed the petition subject to venfication of facts for grant of 2nd kramonnati after completion of 24 years of service, in accordance wifh two circulars, one being dated 24.4.2007 and (he ofher being dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999. He submits that there is no circiilar dated 24.4.2007 but in fact it is circular dated 24.4.2006. He submits that in the circular of 1999, it has been stated that the order shall be applicable from fhe date of amendment in the relevant service rutes. His furfher submission is that the circular does not say that the benefit is to be given J&'om fhe date immediately upon expiry of 24 years. He further submits that fhe respondent - authority considered the case of fhe petitioners according to his understanding of the relevant provision contained in the t<vo circulars and according to him fhe petitioners are entitled to grant of 2nd kramonnati from the date of cu-cular dated 19.4.1999 and, therefore, he has granted ftie same from fhe date mentioned in the order dated 15. 10.2009 wifh a further direction that financial benefits would be available only from 1.3.2006 as state in Circular dated 24A April 2006, ^ .^—^^ '•"';^ '-<:^' i. -4- t{ ^) 1»^»' Praveen 7. After hearing leamed coimsel for the parties, I find that the order passed in W.P. (S) 1782/08 reqiured the respondents to gprant kramonnati after completion of 24 years of service in accordance wifh ftie two cu-culars of fhe Govemment The respondent- authority seems to have taken a particular view as to date with effect from which such benefit would be admissible. Irrespective of whefher the petitioners are entitled to fhe beneflt of krainonnati from the date fhe circular was issued in the year 1999 or with effect J&'om the date tmmediately upon expiry of period of 24 years, it is dtfficult to hold ftiat the respondent acted in wUlful disobedience so as to mitiate contempt proceedings against them. The respondent-authority has granted 2nd kramonnati to fhe petitioners, but fliere appears to be a dispute with regard to fhe date from which it is to be granted. 8. In fhese circumstances, I am not inctuied to proceed further in the matter. The rule is therefore dischai^ed and the petition is accordtngly Imally disposed of. 9. It is, however, made clear fhat this would not stand in fhe way of the petitioners in taldng recourse to fhe remedy as may available to them iinder the law in furtherance of fheir claim tliat they are entitled to 2nd kramonnati from fhe date immediatel% after expiry of period of 24 years. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge