Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tej Singh vs Sarvesh Kaushal on 4 May, 2016
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) Nos.699-700 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2782-2783 OF 2015
TEJ SINGH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
SARVESH KAUSHAL & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) Nos.701-704 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2777-2780 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 706 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2773 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) Nos.707-708 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2774-2775 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.711 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2785 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.712 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2796 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.713 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2794 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.720 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2797 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.96 OF 2016
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2759 OF 2015
Signature Not Verified
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.133 OF 2016
IN
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2016.05.05
16:41:08 IST
Reason: CIVIL APPEAL No.2768 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.48 OF 2016
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No.2759 OF 2015
2
O R D E R
Mr. Kultaran Singh Ghumman, Deputy Commandant General Home Guards & Deputy Director Civil Defence, Chandigarh, Punjab, Mr. O.P. Mishra, Additional Secretary, Home, Government of NCT of Delhi, Mr. Sita Ram Mardi, Director General of Police-cum-Director General & Commandant General, Home Guards/Civil Defence & Director Fire Services, Himachal Pradesh are present in Court today. We have heard learned counsel for the alleged contemnors in respect of the petitions that have been filed by the petitioners alleging violation of paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2015 in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015 and batch of matters. Paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2015 reads as follows:
“22. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of services or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is called for against the judgments passed by the Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi High Courts. However, taking into consideration the fact that Home Guards are used during the emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel, we are of the view that the State Government should pay them the duty allowance at such rates, total of which 30 days (a month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is expected that the State Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms of aforesaid observation on an early date preferably within three months.” 3 According to learned counsel for the petitioners, while implementing the judgment of this Court, the respondents have only considered the basic pay + grade pay and have, accordingly, granted some minor increase in the allowance due to the petitioners as well as Rs.80/- by way of washing allowance.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the expression “minimum of the pay” mentioned in paragraph 22 is intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay. This is in the context of the view expressed by this Court denying regular appointments to the petitioners, while taking into consideration the fact that the services of the Home Guards are used during an emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel.
Accordingly, we make it clear that the word “minimum of the pay” used in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2015 means the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance.
Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the respondents to a decision of this Court in Jiban Krishna Mondal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and 4 Others [(2015) 12 SCC 74]. We have gone through the judgment with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the judgment is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the case inasmuch as that case did not concern itself with the grant of pay to the Home Guards.
So far as the present case is concerned, relief of regularization was declined, but this Court directed the payment of minimum of the pay which, as we have explained above, would mean basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowance + washing allowance.
However, we make it clear that the pay that is given to the petitioners will not be on a monthly basis, but will be calculated with reference to each day of work put in by the petitioners.
The contempt petitions are disposed of in view of the above.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI MAY 04, 2016 5 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 699-700/2015 In C.A. No. 2782-2783/2015 No(s).
TEJ SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SARVESH KAUSHAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 701-704/2015 in C.A. No. 2777-2780/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 706/2015 In C.A. No. 2773/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 707-708/2015 In C.A. No. 2774-2775/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 711/2015 In C.A. No. 2785/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 712/2015 In C.A. No. 2796/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 713/2015 In C.A. No. 2794/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 720/2015 In C.A. No. 2797/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 96/2016 In C.A. No. 2759/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 133/2016 In C.A. No. 2768/2015 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 48/2016 In C.A. No. 2759/2015 Date : 04/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Khanna, AAG Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR 6 Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Mr. Saudhamni Sharma, Adv. Mr. W.A. Quadri, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Zaid Ali, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR Ms. Satya Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudutta, AOR Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The contempt petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)