Patna High Court - Orders
Keshav Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 December, 2009
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.1893 of 2008
SADANAND BAITHA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2276 of 2008
SURENDRA NATH CHAUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2277 of 2008
KESHAV KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2278 of 2008
NAND JEE PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2279 of 2008
RAMDEO YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2314 of 2008
VIJAY SHANKAR CHAUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.1926 of 2008
SHAMBHU NATH UPADHYAY & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.1928 of 2008
PARAS NATH PANDEY & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2226 of 2008
YOGENDRA RAI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
2
MJC No.2227 of 2008
BRAJRAJ BHAKTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2228 of 2008
RAM HRIDYA RAY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2229 of 2008
SHEOJEE YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2324 of 2008
KUMARI DEOSUNDARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2326 of 2008
PANCHANAND YATI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2562 of 2008
NANDJI PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2281 of 2008
RAMAYAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2282 of 2008
MAHESH PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
MJC No.2283 of 2008
LAKSHAMI PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
------
For the petitioners : M/s Ravindra Nath Dubey,
3
Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sanjeet Kr. Tiwry,
Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the opposite party : Government Pleader 13
.....
6 2.12.2009These three cases i.e. MJC No.2281 of 2008, MJC No.2282 of 2008 and MJC No.2283 of 2008 are also arising out of the same order of this Court and as such taken together with the rest of cases where all parties are represented.
On 20.5.2008 a large number of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 10568 of 2007 and analogous matters were disposed of. Noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court inter-party and other factual issue all writ petitions were allowed and the order terminating the services of the teachers were set aside. It was held that they would be entitled to full continuity of service but their tenure would continue only up to the time when duly newly recruited persons are appointed. They were given liberty to apply as well. All these directions were pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court itself. The writ had been necessitated because notwithstanding clear direction of the Apex Court and virtually in defiance thereof petitioners were dismissed again. Thus, 4 effectively the petitioners became entitled to not only reinstatement but with back wages as well. In May, 2008 the writ petitions were allowed. The number of writ petitioners were quite large and spread in three districts i.e. Gopalganj, Siwan and Chapra. All three under one Commissionary i.e. Saran. This problem apparently did not arise any where else in Bihar. The three districts are immediately under the control and supervision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education with respective District Education Officers of the three districts under him. In these proceedings now it is revealed that the total amount of payment for arrears that were to be made was quite substantial. This was known to all and it is apparently that which starts the problem. For almost a year the District Education Officers, the Regional Deputy Director, Education, wait for something more than the judgment for its implementation. Court would not like to discuss what. Ultimately petitioners being fed up filed these contempt applications apart from some other contempt applications as well for securing to themselves what had already been given to them by this Court. They sought reinstatement, back wages and current wages. 5 The contempt applications some of which were filed in middle of the year 2008 could not be taken up. The long list before this Court left the cases pending. Regrettably the authorities also choose to go deep slumber. They wake up only in March, 2009, after almost a year when some of the contempt applications are taken up by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court. The only defence taken by the Sate there is that they proposed to file a letters patent appeal. Still this Court does not give them time but only observes that payments of arrears of salary, current salary and joining would all be subject to the result of the proposed letters patent appeal. This is order dated 16.3.2009 in some of the contempt applications, one of them being MJC No. 2225 of 2008. Again nothing was done and even though over a year had elapsed even the L.P.A. had not been filed, still authorities sat over the matter. Then the Regional Deputy Director, Education, who controls the three districts which are only the three problem districts, on 19.3.2009 wrote seeking compliance of orders of the writ Court. He pointed out that request for allotment of fund should be sent immediately so that by 30th March, 2009, 6 payments are made. It is on record that thereafter he kept sending reminders to the District Education Officers, who are his subordinates and seeking guidance from the Director, Primary Education, but did nothing more. In the meantime on or about 9th April 2009 the L.P.As. were filed, they were summarily dismissed on 22.5.2009. This was known to all officers still files kept running from one person to another directing payment asking for payment but no one making payment with the exception of Gopalganj. The District Education Officers, Gopalganj has filed a show cause stating that having received the letter of the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, dated 19.3.2009 he found that there was some surplus funds available with various Headmasters where the petitioners had joined. He immediately directed that payments from those surplus fund be made before it lapsed on the close of financial year. Thus, with exception of one school or few petitioners, the rest in the District of Gopalganj were paid their arrears. They had already joined. There is no dispute. This sort of, upset people immediately. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, on coming to know of 7 this payment had been made, on 26.6.2009 issued a show cause notice to the District Education Officer, Gopalganj, which clearly points out that there had not been any direction issued by him to make payment as such why payments of arrears of salary were made. The said document is on record. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj, reverting states that he was only complying with directions of this Court and payments being long over due, from surplus fund before they lapsed, payments were made, they would be recouped in the next financial year. This was not appreciated by the Regional Deputy Director, Education who found his explanation to be grossly unsatisfactory, rejecting the show cause and holding that his order to make payments were wrongly interpreted and the explanation was unsatisfactory, payment should not have been made. It is a matter of record that in March, 2009, itself the Director, Primary Education had written to the Regional Deputy Director, Education as well as the District Education Officers to immediately ascertained the amounts and inform the Directorate so that necessary provisions can be made for fund allocation for payment in 8 compliance with the order of this Court. To keep the records moving every month, the Regional Deputy Director, Education, would write one letter either upwards to the Director or downwards to the District Education Officers but did nothing beyond that. As noticed above even when efforts were made to make payment, he took serious objections to it. It may be noted here that when these contempt applications were taken up earlier, petitioners had complained first with regard to the attitude of the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, in the matter. This Court ordered the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, to appear in person and file a show cause. He appeared in person and filed a show cause. His stand basically was that I am merely a middle man between the District Education Officers and the Director, Primary Education. I have already informed the Director, Primary Education long back but what can I do if the Directorate does not release fund and as such I have done every thing. The fault lies with the Director and the District Education Officers. On this, the Court asked the Director, Primary Education to be personally present in the Court along with the 9 Regional Deputy Director. When the two were confronted, the Director, Primary Education, pointed out that way back in March 2009, he had directed all concerned to immediately send detailed statements of liability so that proper fund allocation could be made to implement the judgment of this Court. He produced before this Court the statement which the Regional Deputy Director, Education, had sent. That statement was sent to the Director on 17.11.2009 only and received by the Director on 19th November, 2009 only. The Director, thus, explained that he had been after the officers to send detailed calculation in absence whereof he could not arrange for the compliance of this order. The Regional Deputy Director Education's plea that he had long ago done his job was falsified on the face of it. Thus, this Court directed initiation of proceedings against the Regional Deputy Director, Education, as well as the District Education Officers, concerned. They have filed their show causes. What facts I have noted above are from the show cause as was filed.
Firstly, so far District Education Officer, Gopalganj, is concerned he has established 10 his bona fide to comply the order of this Court only to be threatened by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, for having partly complied. So far as Chapra is concerned the District Education Officer states that he joined on 31.8.2009, he thereafter on 14.11.2009 sent a detailed statement to the Regional Deputy Director, Education. What steps he took to find out is not disclosed that for over 1 ½ years order of the Court was not being complied with and why orders of Director, Primary Education had not been complied with. He did not think necessary to make any inquiries and act promptly in the matter. The result is that none of the petitioners, who are from Chapra have been paid any arrears at all. When we come to Siwan the matter is worse. There are only letters coming up and down. At one stage the District Education Officer in March 2009 itself submits a consolidated demand without any breakup which obviously is useless. He then take six months to give the figures on basis of which he himself had prepared the consolidated statement and made the demand. Apparently a hoax, only to delay if not deferred payments. He being a drawing disbursing authority 11 should have known that whenever allotment of any fund is demanded or sought for full details thereof are to be supplied not the nett demand and if he had already supplied full details then all he had to do was to send the details again. Instead in his show cause, he has tried to establish that having asked for payment in March 2009 from the Director, Primary Education in pursuance to his letter he started calling for and calculating details from various Headmasters. One wonders how he had earlier made a demand without the particulars being with him. That is why this Court holds that it was a hoax. Thus, it would be seen that notwithstanding judgment of this Court delivered on 20.5.2008 first authorities start moving in March, 2009, contempt applications having been filed in July - August, 2008 itself. Then they await not the result but filing of the L.P.A. as if the authorities have a right not to implement the judgment of this Court because they intend to file L.P.A. and so long as they sleep over the matter, they can stay the implementation of the judgment of this Court. This I say because up to April, 2009 i.e. for whole of year the L.P.A. was not filed. Then when it was filed and 12 summarily dismissed then again there are only letters which run from pillar to posts without delivery. It is regretted that till today which is more than 1 and ½ years after the judgment and almost 8 months after dismissal of L.P.A. the petitioners are yet to reap full benefit of the judgment of this Court. This clearly shows the reluctance on parts of the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, and the District Education Officers, Chapra and Siwan to take effective steps for giving the benefit of the judgment to the petitioners without any undue favour. That is indeed a serious matter. It affects the majesty of Court, the dignity of Court and is destructive of rules of law in every aspect. All steps are calculated steps to delay if not deny implementation of orders of this Court. Where efforts were made to comply the orders of this Court like by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj, he was pulled up by the Regional Deputy Director, Education. In such a situation, I am left with no options but to hold the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, the District Education Officer, Siwan and the District Education Officer, Chapra, guilty of willful committing contempt of this Court. In view of 13 the undertaking earlier given by the Director, Primary Education that entire payment would be clear within two months as recorded in order dated 20.11.2009 I direct that each of the petitioners be compensated with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) which would be recovered from these three officers, but payment to the petitioners would not await recovery. That would be an adequate punishment for the contempt they have committed. All these contempt applications in so far as these contemnors are concerned stand discharge in the manner indicated above.
Let the matter now be placed for compliance on 2nd February, 2010 as ordered earlier.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Spd/-