Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Santokh Singh vs Mohd Iqbal Khanday And Anr on 29 September, 2018
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S No. 51
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 123/2013 in SWP No. 1608/1992
IA Nos. 01/2017, 02/2015. 01/2015, 01/2018. 02/2018, 03/2018, 04/2018, 05/2018, 06/2018
Date of Order: 29.09.2018
Santokh Singh vs. Mohd. Iqbal Khanday, C. Secy. and anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearance:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, Adv.
Mr. Virender Bhat, Adv.
Mr. M. I. Sherkhan, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Adv.
For the respondent(s): Ms. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG
i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Press/Media?
ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Digest/Journal?
This Court vide order dated 28.08.2018, after considering rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, has held in paragraph 12, which reads as under:
"For the aforesaid reasons explained above, I am of the opinion that the judgment passed by this Court dated 17.05.2001 and affirmed by the Supreme Court is yet to be complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit. They are supposed to issue an SRO amending the Schedule of SRO 75 of 1992 dated 30.03.1992 in the same manner they issued SRO 163 of 2005 in the case of District Judges. Let me make it clear and emphatic that the Superintending Engineers and the District Judges are required to be treated at par and this is clear and categoric import of the judgment sought to be implemented in these proceedings. Simply, because the compliance of the concluded judgment of a Court involves huge financial implications, the respondents cannot avoid the compliance. The respondents, despite being well aware of the import of the judgment, as is apparent from the memorandum prepared by the Finance Department for submission to the Cabinet for complying with the judgment in the case of Superintending Engineers and subsequently the order passed by the Division Bench on 28.05.2015 and interlocutory order passed by this Court in these contempt proceedings on 05.10.2017, have strangely adopted an adamant attitude and have given impression to the Court that they are above law and are the final interpreters of the judgment passed by this Court. The conduct exhibited by the respondents, on the CPSW No. 123/2013 Page 1 of 3 fact of it, is contemptuous and respondents are, therefore, prima facie in Contempt. However, before I frame the Robkar and call upon the respondents to show cause as to why they be not punished, I deem it appropriate to afford them a last opportunity of four weeks to come up with full compliance of the judgment dated 17.05.2001 in letter and spirit and also ensure that not only orders on papers are passed but the benefits flowing from such orders passed in compliance to the judgment also reach the beneficiaries, i.e., all Superintending Engineers as have been held entitled to by the judgment sought to be complied with in these contempt proceedings."
From the perusal of the order, it is patently clear that this Court, while observing that the respondents are supposed to come up with a relevant SRO amending SRO 75 of 1992 dated 30.03.1992 in the same manner they had issued SRO 163 of 2005 pertaining to the case of District Judges, also directed that the compliance should not only be on papers but the benefits flowing from such compliance shall also reach the beneficiaries.
In compliance to the aforesaid, respondents have issued SRO No. 403 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 adding 2nd proviso to the Schedule of J&K Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1992, by virtue of which the Superintending Engineers have now been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 notionally w.e.f. from 01.04.1987 and monetary w.e.f. 01.04.1990. On being pointedly asked as to whether the consequential monetary benefits flowing from aforesaid SRO in favour of the Superintending Engineers have actually been disbursed to them, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that SRO No. 403 dated 14.09.2018 has recently been issued and the concerned department has been directed to work out the benefits flowing out of the SRO in favour of the beneficiaries of the judgment.
I have considered the submissions. It is true that part of the judgment has been complied with, in that, as the required SRO has been issued and the Superintending Engineers have now been placed in the pay scale of 4500-5700 w.e.f. from 01.04.1987 notionally and monetarily w.e.f. 01.04.1990. It is also not in dispute that benefit arising out of the SRO, which would ensue to the CPSW No. 123/2013 Page 2 of 3 Superintending Engineers have not been disbursed so far. SRO 403 is issued only on 14.09.2018 and therefore, reasonable time is required to be afforded so as to enable the respondents to work out the monetary benefits payable to the beneficiaries.
In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are, thus, granted two months' time to complete the whole exercise with regard to the working out of emoluments/arrears, which are due and payable to the Superintending Engineers, pursuant to SRO 403 dated 14.09.2018. The respondents shall submit compliance report in this regard to this Court by the next date. Chief Secretary shall personally monitor to ensure that benefits flowing from SRO 403 of 2018 actually reach the beneficiary.
List on 04.12.2018.
Registry to provide a copy of this order to Ms. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:
29.09.2018 Rakesh CPSW No. 123/2013 Page 3 of 3