Uttam Kumar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge questioning only that part of the order by which respondents were directed to comply the mandate of Regulation 13.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 and to extend the benefit of leave encashment and salary of summer vacations from the date of filing of the writ petitions in the year 2014.

Prayer of the appellants is that they ought to have been granted actual benefits from the date they filed earlier writ petition in 2011 wherein direction was issued to respondents to consider their representations and the respondents mechanically rejected their representations vide order dated 08.08.2013 particularly when the order dated 08.08.2013 was also set aside by the learned Single Judge. It is informed that the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 999/2017, State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Dr. Nitin Gupta & Others. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2017 dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present appeal in toto. The State of Rajasthan challenged the judgment passed by the Division Bench as also of the Single Bench before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 36401/2017, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2018 in the following terms:

"Delay condoned.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find no merit in the special leave petitions. They are dismissed accordingly.

The petitioners should pay the amount to the respondents within four months."

Even though the learned counsel for the appellants has sought to argue that the appellants were not at fault and therefore they should not be penalised or deprived of the actual benefits for the period between 2011 to 2014, as they have timely approached this Court in 2011 and their writ petitions were disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide their representations. When the order of rejecting their representations has been set aside, they should be paid actual benefits from the date of filing of the writ petitions, which were filed in the year 2011.

We are not inclined to countenance this submission because earlier the respondents were merely required to consider the grievances of the appellants and the learned Single Judge has passed a conscious order by restricting actual benefits from the date of filing of the subsequent writ petition in 2014. We do not find any infirmity in the exercise of discretion while moulding the relief to the appellants. Now when the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been upheld not only by the Division Bench of this Court but also by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the judgment should be implemented in the manner it has been passed extending benefits to the appellants from the date of filing of writ petition in the year 2014.

Learned counsel for the respondents at this stage submitted that though the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2018 required the respondents to pay the actual benefits to the appellants within four months but the period of four months has expired in the month of November, 2018, and the benefits have not been granted.

We direct the respondents to compute the actual benefits and make payment thereof to the appellants herein and all other identically situated persons else they will be held guilty of willful disobedience of the order of this Court. If the payment is not made within reasonable time, it would be open for the appellants herein to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents.

The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Stay Application No. 15968/2016 also stands disposed of.