Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chander Ladohia vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 August, 2019
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Ex. Petition No. 84 of 2018.
Decided on: 26.8.2019.
Ramesh Chander Ladohia ......Petitioner.
.
Versus
Union of India & ors. .......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the appellant(s): Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh
Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Sr. Panel Counsel for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).
In this petition, judgment dated 7.5.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2006 has been sought to be executed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"The outcome of the above discussion is that the petitioner had completed his M.A. (Hindi) qualification within two years as per letter dated 25.3.1994. The block of two years is to be counted from the date when the petitioner sought admission and appeared in the examination on the first available opportunity i.e. November, 1994. The decision taken by the respondents that the period of two years to be counted from 25.3.1004 to enable the petitioner to complete his M.A. (Hindi) qualification is declared unreasonable and arbitrary. The conditions of service of the 1 Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 2
petitioner are to be governed vide letter dated 25.3.1994 on the basis of which he was permitted to improve his M.A. (Hindi) qualification. His case was .
required to be reviewed immediately after two years for appointment as Lecturer in the subject of Hindi. He is not required to qualify NET examination since his case was to be considered as per Annexure P-3 dated 25.3.1994. The parties are bound by the conditions imposed in Annexure P-3 dated 25.3.1994.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and Annexure P-12 dated 28.4.2006 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) strictly as per letter dated 25.3.1994 and the observations made here-in-above within four weeks. The petitioner will be held entitled to all the consequential benefits in the eventuality of being appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Hindi. No order as to costs."
2. Therefore, as per the judgment sought to be executed the respondents had to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) strictly as per letter dated 25.3.1994 within four weeks with all consequential benefits in the event of being appointed as such. We would like to refer here to letter dated 25.3.1994, Annexure P-3 to this petition. As a matter of fact, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 3 Development (Department of Education) has conveyed its approval to the recognition of Sanatan Dharam Snatakotar, Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Dohgi, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, .
H.P., the 3rd respondent. The quantum of teaching and non-
teaching staff was also sanctioned for this College vide this communication. So far as Lecturer Modern Subjects is concerned, this letter reads as follows:
"Sh. Ramesh Chand Ladohia presently working as Lecturer (Hindi) does not have M.A. (Second Class) degree in Hindi. He may be appointed as Post Graduate Teacher with the specific condition that he shall have to improve his MA (Hindi) qualification within 2 years. His case may be reviewed after two years for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) if he improves his qualification within the stipulated period."
3. Sh. Ramesh Chand Ladohia referred to hereinabove is none else but the petitioner. The above quoted portion of the letter dated 25.3.1994 reveals that though petitioner was working as Lecturer (Hindi) at the time of granting recognition to the College, however, was not having the essential qualification i.e. M.A. (second class) degree in Hindi. Though, as per this letter he was permitted to be appointed as postgraduate teacher, however, with the specific condition that he shall have to improve his M.A. (Hindi) qualification within two years. His case was to ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 4 be reviewed after two years for his appointment as Lecturer (Hindi) subject to improvement in his qualification by him within the stipulated period. It has been held in the judgment sought to .
be executed that the petitioner has improved his qualification i.e. M.A. (Hindi) within the stipulated period. Respondent No. 2 has also appointed him as Lecturer (Hindi) vide Office Order (Annexure P-8) to this petition on and w.e.f. 1.10.1996 i.e. after he having improved his qualification with all consequential benefits. The pay fixation of the petitioner vide Annexure P-8, however, was not found in order, therefore, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan vide communication dated 10.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) has ordered to fix the pay of the petitioner as under:
01.10.1996 10300/-
01.10.1997 10575/-
01.10.1998 10850/-
01.10.1999 11125/-
01.10.2000 11400/-
01.10.2001 11675/-
01.10.2002 11950/-
01.10.2003 12225/-
01.10.2004 12500/-
01.10.2005 12775/-::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 5
4. Consequently, respondent No. 3 Sanskrit Mahavidalyaya has re-fixed the pay of the petitioner vide Office .
Order dated 11.9.2008 Annexure P-7 accordingly. Even the arrears stand calculated vide Annexure P-8 and paid to the petitioner. It is recorded so in the order Annexure P-9 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2008, as while discharging the notice of contempt issued to the respondents, it has been observed that the judgment has been implemented in its letter and spirit. No doubt, in contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2009, preferred against the order Annexure P-9 the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 26.5.2010 Annexure P-10 has clarified the same further to the extent that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his grievance regarding eligible benefits flowing out of the judgment sought to be executed with the following observations:
"2. It is the submission of the appellant that the judgment has not been complied with and that there is willful disobedience and hence the respondents are liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. We are afraid having regard to the disputed questions involved in the case, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Therefore, an action for contempt may not lie.::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 6
At the same time, we are of the view that the observations in the order in contempt petition might stand in the way of the petitioner for pursuing his remedy of execution. What was .
required in the contempt petition is only to see whether there is contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondents in disobeying the orders of the Court. That certainly is not there and the matter should have been left at that stage. But apparently, the observations of learned Single Judge that the judgment has been complied with in letter and spirit will certainly stand in the way of the petitioner for pursuing his grievance in an appropriate proceeding other than the contempt proceedings. Therefore, to that extent, the order in appeal requires modification. Ordered accordingly, with a further clarification that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his grievance regarding eligible benefits flowing out of the judgment in the Civil Writ petition in appropriate proceedings."
5. It is in this backdrop, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the complaint that the judgment has not been implemented in its letter and spirit. Respondents No. 2 & 3 have filed the affidavit in compliance, reiterating therein its stand that the judgment sought to be executed stands implemented fully and that all consequential benefits, including arrears also stand released to the petitioner. The complaint, however, is that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed afresh ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 7 w.e.f. 1.10.2006 which is stated to be wrong because he had already been working as Lecturer (selection grade) on the said date. Also that the decision to revise the pay scale of the .
petitioner has been taken by the respondents on 28.6.2011 w.e.f.
1.1.2006 and the revised pay scales released to the teachers working in the College immediately thereafter. The petitioner, therefore, was also stated to be entitled for release of his dues on account of revised pay scale, however, arrears to him have been released on 8.9.2018 and as such, he is entitled to interest for the period from 1.7.2011 to 1.9.2018 @ 12% per annum.
6. Such complaint of the petitioner, however, is baseless as it has come in the letter dated 25.3.1994 that he was not eligible for appointment as Lecturer (Hindi). He, therefore, was permitted to be appointed as postgraduate teacher in the College.
His case for appointment as Lecturer in Hindi was left open to be considered after he acquires the qualification i.e. M.A. (second class) in Hindi within two years. Consequent upon the judgment sought to be executed, he has now been appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) on and w.e.f. 1.10.1996 after acquiring the essential educational qualification. His pay has also been fixed accordingly consequent upon Annexure P-5 to this petition vide Office Order Annexure P-7. The due and admissible benefits ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP 8 dated 11.9.2008 have also been worked out and released to him.
There is no direction in the judgment sought to be executed to pay the same together with interest, therefore, the claim of the .
petitioner in this regard is not legally admissible.
7. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and to the contrary the judgment sought to be executed stands implemented in its letter and spirit. The Execution Petition, as such, is dismissed as fully satisfied.
r ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary ),
Judge.
August 26, 2019, ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ),
(karan-) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:35:37 :::HCHP