Vishnu Adarsh Shiksha Samiti Bakho vs Premchand Meena

Complaining disobedience and breach of an order dated 5th of February, 2007 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 1183/2001 and the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court affirming the order of the Writ Court in W.A. No. 965/2008 on 21.1.2013, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt.

In the writ petition in para 14 the following directions have been issued :-

�14(iii) While considering grant-in-aid for the academic session 1998-99 and onwards, the respondents shall see that if the 30 employees in respect of whom grant-in-aid vide Annexure P/2 dated 28.3.1994 was approved were/ are still working in the institution, then they shall be entitled for the benefit. But in case, aforesaid employees left the job then for fresh appointment rules applicable as on date shall apply. But till those persons had worked with the petitioner institution, the petitioner institution shall be entitled to get the grant-in-aid in accordance with law and rules applicable in the year 1993.

(iv) So far as applicability of Central Pay Scale to the employees of petitioner institution is concerned, if no order has been passed by the respondents, then petitioner may make a fresh representation to the respondents who shall consider and decide this aspect within 4 months from the date of receipt of receipt of the representation...�

(Emphasis Supplied)

On the basis of the compliance reported and additional documents filed by the parties, it is pointed out that the directions contained in sub clause (iii) and (iv) of para 14 have not been complied with.

Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the order Annexure R/1 dated 21.4.2014 passed by the Collector and argued that the Collector has indicated that the institute is closed, and therefore, no salary can be granted after closure of the institute. She points out that this assertion is not correct. With regard to 30 employees referred to in the order, it is her contention that they are entitled for salary as was being paid under the grant-in-aid applicable in the year 1993 and the Collector in the order impugned has refused to grant the benefit only in view of amendment to the statutory rules pertaining to grant- in-aid. It is submitted by her that this is not permissible and deliberately the Collector has violated the direction of this Court. That apart, she points out that in the matter of grant of Central Pay Scale, the Collector has not taken up rules properly and in total disregard of the Rules, the impugned order has been passed. She invites our attention to the averments made by petitioner in the additional submissions filed along with various documents to say that the institute was functioning right upto 14.3.2014 when the inspection was carried out and the contention that institute was not functioning is disputed.

Shri Sudesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and submitted that a physical inspection of the institute was undertaken by the Collector on 13.3.2014 and on the date record indicates that the institute was not functioning and on physical verification of the institute, it was found to be closed.

As far as refusing the claim for grant of Central Pay Scale, Shri Sudesh Verma argues that only direction issued in the writ petition was that the representation be considered, the same having been considered and rejected, now the manner of consideration cannot be a subject matter for initiating action for contempt. It is argued by Shri Sudesh Verma that merely because consideration for grant of Central Pay Scale has not been done in accordance to Rules, in the absence of any specific directions in this regard, contempt action cannot be initiated.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. The question is as to whether contempt action is liable to be taken in the matter ?

Even though direction given in para 14 is to grant the benefit of pay as per rules applicable in the year 1993 to 30 employees based on grant- in-aid, but now the report of the Collector and the order Annexure R/1 indicates that after inspection, he has recorded a finding that the institute has been closed and therefore, no further action is required to be taken. However, the petitioner by filing certain additional submission has tried to indicate to this Court that the institute was functioning by various authorities and therefore, the order of Collector is not correct.

In view of the averments now made by the petitioner in the additional submissions and documents filed on 1st August 2014 with regard to considering the relief under clause 14(iii), we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration.

Accordingly, with regard to this aspect of the matter i.e. with regard to the relief granted to the petitioner vide para 14(iii) of the order passed, we issue the following directions :-

On the petitioner''s filing a certified copy of this order along with all the relevant documents and their representations as contained in additional submission, the Collector shall re-examine the matter in the light of the documents submitted and decide the question of payment of benefit to 30 employees afresh in accordance to the directions issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

As far as the question of payment of Central Pay scale is concerned, the order passed in the writ petition was only to consider the representation and take a decision. The representation having been considered and decided, on the ground that the representation has not been properly considered or relevant material or circular have not been taken note of, we do not deem it appropriate to take action for contempt. In case petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the representation has been decided, they may challenge the same afresh in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, and the directions as contained herein above, the petition stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.