AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner herein was the Petitioner in O.P. No.1730/2001, which was disposed of by Annexure I judgment. The Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions therein. This Court had directed the Deputy Director of Education to pass a fresh order within two months of the date of receipt of the judgment and to disburse due benefits to the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order.
Notice was ordered and the matter was heard on different occasions. By order dated 6.8.2010, this Court directed the Deputy Director to report compliance of the order passed by him on or before 12.8.2010, failing which the Officer was directed to be personally present before this Court. Annexure A7 reply was earlier given by the Deputy Director to the Petitioner that all necessary instructions have been given to the District Educational Officer for disbursement of the benefits.
Respondents 2 and 4 were personally present before this Court on 12.8.2010 and after hearing the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the Officers, this Court passed an order on 12.8.2010 posting the matter to 20.8.2010, after recording the assurance by the 4th Respondent-DEO that the pay revision benefits and the benefit towards Grade Promotions will be disbursed within 10 days.
Along with an affidavit, the 4th Respondent has produced the order passed by her with regard to sanction of due benefits. The same has been marked as Annexure R4(a). An additional affidavit has also been filed on 24.9.2010.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due benefits have not been sanctioned even now, as the date of option was changed from 1.7.1996 to 1.7.1997 by the Petitioner on 19.8.2010 by filing a separate representation, after cancelling the re-option already submitted. It is pointed out that the order passed by the DEO, Annexure R4(a) is dated 16.8.2010. But, realising the mistake in submitting the date of option, the Petitioner had submitted a representation on 19.8.2010. It is therefore submitted that if the date of option is accepted as 1.7.1997, the Petitioner will be entitled for more benefits and therefore the action of the DEO in preparing the bills on 21.8.2010 without accepting the revised option is not in due compliance of the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, in a nut shell, the argument is that all the due benefits have not been disbursed so far.
With regard to these aspects, an additional affidavit has been filed by the 4th Respondent. It is pointed out that the request made by the Petitioner is to cancel the earlier re-option and to accept the new date for re-option. The stand taken by the 4th Respondent in paragraph 4 of the affidavit is that Petitioner cannot exercise further re-option without obtaining sanction from the Government. Her new request for re-option can be considered only by the Government, as the re-option already submitted has already been accepted while passing Annexure R4 (a) order.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the affidavit dated 6.9.2010 will show that the DEO has effected certain
corrections suo motu on the fixation statement and therefore, if the Petitioner was issued a notice in the matter before passing Annexure R4(a), the matter could have been properly settled before the DEO.
The learned Government Pleader explained that only the mistake in the pay scales alone was corrected and the date of re-option was not corrected by the DEO. It is pointed out that the DEO had assured this Court that within 10 days there will be due compliance of the order passed by this Court and therefore the contention that a further notice had to be issued to the Petitioner cannot be sustained.
True that the Petitioner had actually submitted the revised option within a period of three days. Assuming that the proceedings Annexure R4(a) even if irregular or illegal in any manner, going by the stand taken by the Petitioner now, the same will have to be set aside either by the higher authority or in a Writ Petition before this Court. Positive directions will have to be issued to accept the change of option submitted by the Petitioner, that is, by the change of date from 1.7.1996 to 1.7.1997. The same can be done only in other proceedings and not in the contempt jurisdiction.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even now amounts towards travelling allowance, festival allowance and balance DCRG have not been sanctioned or disbursed. The same will be looked into by the DEO or the Deputy Director as the case may be and the balance amounts will be disbursed to the Petitioner without delay and for enabling them to consider the matter, the Petitioner will file a representation in the matter. Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the Petitioner for pursuing the issue regarding the change of date of re-option, the Contempt of Court Case is closed.