Bombay High Court
Ghansham Bharat Chaudhary vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 5 September, 2018
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Manish Pitale
Contempt Petition No.369/2016
with connected petitions
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.369 OF 2016 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.452 OF 2015
Abhijeet Kishor Patil & others ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shri Nandkumar & others ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for State
Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5
.....
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.697 OF 2016 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3813 OF 2015
Ghansham s/o Bharat Chaudhary ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shri Nandkumar & others ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for State
Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5
.....
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.282 OF 2018 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5794 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 :::
Contempt Petition No.369/2016
with connected petitions
(( 2 ))
Pankaj Kantilal Kate & ors. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for State
.....
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.283 OF 2018 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3813 OF 2015
Savita Madhukar Suryawanshi & ors. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for State
.....
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.284 OF 2018 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3811 OF 2015
Ramesh Chintaman Wagh & ors. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for State
.....
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 :::
Contempt Petition No.369/2016
with connected petitions
(( 3 ))
CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. Mrs. Gondhalekar for the State and Mr. Kulkarni for Central Government i.e. Union authorities.
2. The petitioners are before this Court for non- compliance of the order of this Court in bunch of Writ Petitions. These petitioners were before this Court praying for payment of salary. These teaches were appointed as Special Teachers to the Unit of Specially Challenged Children. The perusal of the orders passed by this Court in the petitions time and again and the perusal of the replies filed in the petitions is like opening of Pandora's Park. The last order passed by the Division Bench was on 24.7.2018. The Division Bench referred to the earlier order dated 28.6.2018. It would be useful to refer paras 4 and 5 of the order.
"4. We have in our earlier order observed about defiance on the part of respondents in complying the orders. Even 40% amount as claimed by the respondents to be their contribution has not been deposited.::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 :::
Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 4 ))
5. In case 40% amount of the contribution of the respondents as submitted by respondents is not deposited by 21.08.2018, then in default thereof, notice of contempt to respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be issued directing them to remain present on 05th September 2018."
3. It may not be out of place to refer to the earlier order of this Court, dated 27.3.2018 so as to refer to the grievance of the petitioner and the same is reflected in paras 2 and 5 of the order. The same read as under :
"2. It is submitted that the salary is paid to the petitioners for the year 2014-2015. Salary for the period 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 is not yet paid to the petitioners. The contention of the respondent No.3 is that for the period 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 the 100% liability to make the payment was of the Central Government and thereafter from the year 2015-2016 the liability is 60% of the Central Government and 40% of the State Government. ........
........
5. The petition is pending for more than one and half year. It is not disputed that the salary of the petitioners for the year 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 is not paid."
4. By the very order, the respondent No.3 was directed ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 ::: Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 5 )) to place on record the state of affairs by way of affidavit. Similarly, the learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Union of India was also directed to take instructions for payment of salary to the petitioners for the years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 within a period of two weeks. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention to some interesting facts reflected in the affidavit-in-reply dated 24.6.2017. The submission is, though the petitioners are before this Court, submitting that for a considerable period no salary is paid to the petitioners, the statement in affidavit-in-reply states that, two teachers withdrawn their petition and remaining 13 Units are not eligible for grants. The submission is, even this statement is not in consonance with record. Though it is stated that the two petitioners withdrawn the petition, in fact, none of the petitioner withdrew any petition. Then, our attention was invited to the chart in tabular form annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. This chart shows the names of the teachers and the status of the payment of salary for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; and though there is no statement for the year 2013-2014, there is a statement of the year 2014-2015. Till the year 2014-2015, the responsibility to pay the salary was of Central Government and it is stated that, the Central Government was to bear the burden of 100% funds to be made available for payment of ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 ::: Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 6 )) salary. From the year 2015-2016, the admitted position is, the Central Government was to share the burden to the extent of 60% whereas the State Government was to share the burden of 40%. Now there is a statement i.e. a consolidated statement of the payment from the year 2010-2011 to the year 2017-2018. The counsel for petitioners specifically submitted that, though the petitioners are entitled to receive the regular salary as per the pay-scales, a part payment of salary is made and at no point of time the full salary is paid to any of the petitioners.
5. Today the learned A.G.P. submitted before us a communication dated 4.9.2018. It is stated in the communication that the Central Government was to share the burden of 60% of amount from 2015. Then there is a reference to the amount to the tune of Rs.662.07 Lakhs as a share of the State Government and reference to the amount to the tune of Rs.1075.00 Lakhs and it is stated that, by way of Government Decision dated 22.2.2013 and by way of Government Decision dated 8.11.2017, the total amount of Rs.1737.07 Lakhs is already disbursed and distributed. There are no details to show that how this amount of Rs.1737.07 Lakhs is disbursed against the salary of the teachers and only it is a vague statement made in the communication without there being either any quantification of the amount against teachers' claim or any such ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 ::: Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 7 )) details about disbursement of the amount against an institute.
6. Today Mr. Kulkarni files affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.5. This affidavit-in-reply is filed through Shri Anil Gairola, Under Secretary to the Government of India. Now the Central Government takes a stand in the affidavit that it is the failure of the State Government to provide necessary instructions to the Central Government. The affidavit-in-reply then refers to a statement and it reads:-
"Accordingly, during the meeting of PAB for the year 2017-18 financial support for salary of 553 teachers found eligible was approved for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17."
7. A very important statement is made further and the same reads :
"An amount of Rs.3302.83 lacs was released for financial support to teachers' salary and student oriented component under IEDSS scheme from the year 2014-15 to 2016-17."
8. One is unable to understand if an amount of Rs.3302.83 Lakhs is already released by the Central Government as a financial support, why the same is not finding place in the communication dated 4.9.2018 and why the State Government only is insisting on submitting that the State Government ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 ::: Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 8 )) released some part of the amount, thereby sharing the burden of 40% to be disbursed and distributed against the salary amount of the teachers. We find that, firstly the State Government is not making the position clear before this Court even though there are orders passed by this Court time and again directing the State Government to produce a clear picture before this Court and secondly, an attempt is made to play blame game i.e. the State Government takes a stand that it is not receiving the full and final amount from the Central Government and on the other hand, the Central Government comes before this Court with a statement that an amount of Rs.3302.83 Lakhs is released as a financial support to the State Government, and the Teachers are before this Court submitting that, what they received from the State Government, is a part amount against the regular salary to which they are entitled to. This all is nothing but a chaos created by the State Government and the authorities of Central Government. Though this Court directed in its earlier order dated 24.7.2018 that in case 40% amount of the contribution of respondent, as submitted by the respondent, is not deposited by 4.8.2018, then in default thereof, notice of contempt to respondents No.1 and 2 thereafter were issued to them directing to appear on 5.9.2018 and accordingly, it seems that, there is no compliance. As such, we direct the respondents No.3 and 6 to ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 ::: Contempt Petition No.369/2016 with connected petitions (( 9 )) file detailed affidavit-in-reply within two weeks. We also direct the respondent No.3 Deputy Director of Education to remain present in this Court. It is submitted that the Deputy Director of Education is present in this Court today. We direct the Deputy Director of Education to remain present on the next date also along with affidavit. If the affidavit is not filed on behalf of respondent No.6, the Principal Secretary, School Education Department within two weeks, with clear details. The respondent No.6 also to remain present in this Court on the next date.
9. Post the petitions on 25th September 2018.
10. Contempt Petition No.77/2018 be tagged along with these Contempt Petitions.
(MANISH PITALE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/-
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2018 00:58:43 :::