Hardayal Singh IAS, Secretary Education vs Balwant Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.

Sarvshri Hardayal Singh, Secretary Education, Punjab Government and Shri Ujjal Didar Singh, Director, Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab have filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated October 31, 1986.

The facts :

The respondents along with other petitioners moved C.W.P. No. 2653 of 1983 for a mandate to the State of Punjab and the Director of Public Instruction (School) to grant them regular running pay scale of the post of Master/Teachers from the date they joined service. They were initially appointed as untrained teachers. Instructions were issued by the Punjab Government to the effect that once a person had been recruited to the service and brought on a particular order of service, he should be allowed the scale of pay of that post irrespective of the fact whether on appointment he was an untrained master/teacher. The petitioners in CWP No. 2653 of 1983 sought benefit of those instructions. In that writ petition they also pleaded that in CWP No. 656 of 1977, decided on May 12, 1977, untrained Masters/Teachers were allowed the same scale of pay as was allowed to the regular trained Masters/Teachers from the date of their appointment. The writ petition came up for final disposal before D.V. Sehgal, J. on January 14, 1986. The learned Judge held thus :

"Consequently, I allow this petition with costs and direct the respondents to give the running pay scale of masters/teachers to the petitioners from the dates of their appointment in the same manner as they did in regard to the first group of untrained masters, as and by way of concession or pursuant to the decision in Tilak Raj''s case (supra). The arrears of salary calculated on this basis shall be paid to the petitioners by the respondents within four months from today."

The learned Judge allowed relief to the writ petitioners in terms of the decision rendered in Tilak Raj''s case. In Tilak Raj''s case, the learned Single Judge of this court, after referring to the Punjab Government''s instructions held thus :

"Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has produced copy of letter No. 2524IEBII77, dated 10th March, 1977, from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, Chandigarh, to the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab to contend that the petitioners are entitled to the running grade from the date of their appointment. The aforesaid letter is in the following terms :

"..............................................

2A. On reconsideration of the matter, in partial modification of Punjab Government Memo No. 169IEDII77/3922, dated 27.1.1977 the Governor of Punjab is pleased to order that all the Maric untrained teachers who were appointed on fixed pay in the post be allowed running grade of pay of JBT teachers from the date of their appointment and the arrears be paid to them under the Limitation Act."

Thus, the respondents were only allowed the benefit in terms of the judgment in Tilak Raj''s case. The State Government implemented the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2653 of 1985 decided on January 14, 1986.

The respondents not satisfied with the relief granted to them by the State Government pursue to the judgment rendered in the writ petition filed by the initiated contempt proceedings. They contended that they were entitled to the arrears of pay for the entire period from the date of their appointment upto date. This led to the passing of the following order by the learned Single Judge on October 31, 1986 :

"Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that the difference in pay on allowing running grade from the date of appointment of the petitioners, so far as it was admissible under the Limitation Act, has been paid to them. The direction contained in my judgment dated 14.1.1986 did not limit the relief to any such period. The petitioners have to be allowed the arrears of pay for the entire period from the date of their appointment upto date. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 seeks time to afford the necessary relief to the petitioners. To come up on 7.1.1987 at his request."

The learned Single Judge has tried to read something in the judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 2653 of 1985, which is nonexistent. The State was under an obligation to comply with the directions contained in the judgment and how these were sought to be interpreted in contempt proceedings. The initiation of contempt proceedings was a gross abuse of the process of the Court. By invoking the contempt jurisdiction, the respondents were trying to overawe the officers of the State and to achieve something which was impermissible.

The order of learned Single Judge was complied with. Initiation of contempt proceedings was a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Judge was in error in proceeding with the same. We find that the learned Judge was not justified in proceeding with the contempt petition after he was informed that the judgment had been complied with. It cannot be said that the appellants have disobeyed the orders of the Court wilfully or contumaciously. The interpretation placed by them on the judgment of this Court cannot be categorised as unjust or wrong.

Learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable. The submission is devoid of any merit and is rejected.

As already held, the learned Judge was not justified in proceeding with the contempt petition. The initiation of contempt proceedings itself is a gross abuse of the Court and as such the order cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the concept petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.