Gokul Chand Pareek @APPELLANT@Hash Shri Manjeet Singh

Non compliance of the order dated 2.3.2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4930/2002 is alleged in this petition. Therein the Court had directed as

under:

“(1) The respondents shall finalize pension case of the petitioner deeming all disciplinary enquiry pending against him as closed and grant his retiral

dues, gratuity ad other dues as admissible under the rules,

(2) The petitioner shall be granted benefit of annual grade increments, if due any, and shall also be granted benefit of selection scale;

(3) The petitioner shall produce before the respondents Form No. 10 with required photographs and bank account number, which the respondents shall

forward to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

(4) So far as the arrears of back wages payable pursuant to award of Labour court dated 19.7.1989 if not paid so far, the petitioner shall be at liberty

to approach concerned authority under Section 29 of the Act within 45 days from today.â€​

Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in compliance with the court’s order, the petitioner has been allowed the benefit of

CPF final amount and the same has been given to him vide bill no. 77 dated 23.4.2003. It has also been submitted that petitioner has also been

extended the benefit of leave encashment by cheque no. 036720 dated 3.7.2013. Further the petitioner’s case was considered for granting

selection scale, but in view of his unsatisfactory service record, suspension of 3097 days and leave without sanction for 2486 days, he was not

found entitled to the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Further as directed by the Court, the petitioner has also

been given the benefit of pay fixation and annual grade increments for the period 1974 to 1991 vide order dated 6.6.1991. He has also been given

the benefit of annual increment for the period 1991 to 2001. Besides, he has also been given the benefit of revised pay fixation in the revised pay

scale Rules, 1998 by order dated 8.5.2003.

It has also been submitted that further treating the 8 charge sheets against the petitioner as closed, as directed by this Court in its order dated 2.3.2009,

on re-fixation of the petitioner he was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 97,984/-. That amount has been paid under cheque no. 001210 dated 2.8.2018

drawn on ICICI Bank, which has been handed over to the petitioner’s counsel in court today (which is admitted by counsel). It has been submitted

that in this view of the matter, substantial compliance with the Court’s order has been made, the contempt petition be dismissed.

Per contra, Mr. Lokesh Atrey, counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents have been treating the petitioner as on leave without pay for

different number of days on different occasions. It has been submitted that before the SB the petitioner was stated to have been absent without leave

for 2579 days. In D.B., the petitioner was stated to have been absent without leave for 4443 days and now he has been treated in the computation

absent without leave for 3355 days. Mr. Lokesh Atrey submitted that different figures having been placed before the Court, it by itself without more

tantamounts to contempt of court as the respondents to escape compliance with the court’s order dated 2.3.2009 misleading this court.

Heard. Considered.

The direction of the Court under its order dated 2.3.2009 was to finalize the pension case of the petitioner deeming all disciplinary enquiry pending

against him as closed and he was granted benefit of annual grade increments, selection grade, retiral benefits, gratuity and other dues as admissible

under the rules of RSRTC.

I am of the considered view that direction of this Court indeed required the closure of all disciplinary enquiries against the petitioner and grant of

retiral benefits on their being computed in accordance with law reckoning for annual grade increments and consideration for grant of selection scale.

The respondents were left free to determine the amounts admissible to the petitioner on various heads. No specific amounts were determined, as

payble to the petitioner, by this Court under its order dated 2.3.2009. In compliance with the court’s order, the respondents have determined

various amounts as due to the petitioner under RSRTC’s operating rules, on his retirement. The said amounts and the heads they relate to have

been detailed in the reply to the petition. Whether the calculation has been correctly made or not and whether the number of days on which the

petitioner was treated on leave without sanction / pay have been calculated correctly or not is not a matter which can be addressed in this contempt

petition. If the respondents had at any point of time filed a false / contradictory affidavit before this Court on the number of days on which the

petitioner was on leave, as submitted by the petitioner’s counsel, it does not entail contravention of the court’s specific direction and hence

contempt.

Besides the case at hand is an old one where the difficulty in calculations of days of absence from work without sanction / pay cannot be easily

computed and can indeed be error prone. That act as alleged cannot be contempt as it has ot been stated to be malafide indulged in solely to defeat

the court’s order.  I am of the considered view that in any event substantial compliance of the Court’s order dated 2.3.2009 has been

made. No contempt is thus made out. The petitioner if aggrieved of the quantum of his retiral dues, is always free to take his proceedings with regard

thereto before the appropriate forum which in the instant case as the dispute involves computation of retiral amounts due under various heads, would

be in a trial before a court competent to record evidence.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

Contempt notices stand discharged.