Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kusum Lata & Ors vs Mukesh Repaswal & Anr on 10 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC (T) No. 145 of 2020 and COPC No. 226 of 2019 a/w
.
Execution Petition (T) No. 236 of 2021
Date of Decision: 10.04.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
1. COPC (T) No. 145 of 2020
Kusum Lata & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
Mukesh Repaswal & Anr. .......Respondents
2. COPC No. 226 of 2019
Ram Nath Sharma .........Petitioner
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar & Anr. .......Respondents
3. Execution Petition (T) No. 236 of 2021
Neeru Bhardwaj .........Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Anr. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for
petitioner(s) in all petitions.
For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, alongwith
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma, & Mr.
Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
While placing on record communication dated 04.04.2024, issued under the signatures of Director of Higher Education, Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2024 20:34:27 :::CIS Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandated contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with.
.
2. Perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, reveals that Education Department has fixed the pay in the scale of Rs. 37,40067,000+9,000(GP) of those Librarian (College Cadre), who had already been awarded the scale of Rs. 15,600 39,100+6,000 by the Government after fulfilling the criteria/ norms prescribed by the UGC as per their API Score. UGC scale has been allowed only to those Librarians and Lecturer (College Cadre), who is fulfilling the conditions of qualifications and other norms prescribed by the UGC from time to time.
3. It has been submitted that Smt. Kusum Lata, who was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 17.11.1986 and further promoted to the post of Librarian (College Cadre) on 18.06.2007 has been given the pay scale of Rs. 15,60039,100+6,000(GP) and Senior Scale with 7,000 (GP) & selection grade with 8,000 (GP) in compliance to the orders of the Court. As per the orders/ directions of this Court, UGC pay scale of Rs. 2,2004,000/ was granted to the petitioner from her initial date of appointment i.e. 17.11.1986, when she was actually working as Assistant Librarian.
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2024 20:34:27 :::CIS
4. It has been submitted in the aforesaid communication that Smt. Kusum Lata is not eligible for the Pay bandIV i.e. Rs. 37,00067,000+9,000(GP). Had she opted the pay scale of Rs. 15600 .
39100+9000 (GP) at the date of her promotion as Librarian (College Cadre) i.e. 18.06.2007, she would have been eligible for the Pay band IV i.e. 3700067000+9000 (GP), whereas she opted for the UGC pay scale of Rs. 22004000 from the date i.e. 17.11.1986.
5. Though, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing petitioner, while making this Court peruse compliance affidavit visavis mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, made a serious attempt to make this Court agree with his contention that compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that correctness of judgment passed in purported compliance, cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings, rather, same can be only laid challenge by way of substantive writ petition. Contempt proceedings are meant to ensure compliance of the order, alleged to have been violated. Since, in the case at hand, mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violation, stands duly complied with and there is nothing on record to suggest intentional and willful ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2024 20:34:27 :::CIS disobedience, if any, on the part of the respondents, there is no justification to keep the instant contempt proceedings alive.
4. Consequently, in view of above, the present contempt .
proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondent(s) are discharged. However liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge, to the order passed in purported compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated.
April 10, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Sunil Judge
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2024 20:34:27 :::CIS