Allahabad High Court
Sant Lal Sonkar vs Sri. B.L. Meena, Secretary, Department ... on 16 November, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7564 of 2019 Applicant :- Sant Lal Sonkar Opposite Party :- Sri. B.L. Meena, Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Archana Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 24.07.2019 passed in Writ-A No.12959 of 2012 (Sant Lal Sonkar and others v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 24.07.2019 is quoted as under:-
"Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, pertinent is to reiterate that the Finance Commission on the recommendation of the Task Force Committee had accepted the demand of those who were working on the post of "Live Stock Extension Inspector" in the Animal Husbandry Department, U.P. The Task Force Committee was constituted to make a study of the difference in work and responsibility of two posts. After study, recommendation was made by the Task Force Committee to rationalise two posts with its finding that there was no difference in the duties and responsibilities of these said two posts holders and they were entitled for the same payscale on the principle of ''Equal pay for Equal work''. The Finance Commission also accepted the same. This recommendation was accepted vide Government Order dated 5.6.1991 and was implemented w.e.f 1.1.1986 by providing payscale of Rs.1200-2040/-. Once this was done, there was no justification to create another class of "Live Stock Extension Officer" by placing some in higher payscale of Rs.1350- 2200/- and others in the pay scale of 1200-2040/-. The payscale of all posts in the Animal Husbandry Department was revised w.e.f 1.1.1986. With the merger of two posts and their redesignation as "Live Stock Extension Officer", all incumbents working on two posts became one class, no further classification was, thereafter, permitted. All those who were either actually working or redesignated as "Live Stock Extension Officers" being member of one cadre holding one post were entitled for the same revised payscale ie Rs.1350-2400/-, w.e.f. 1.1.1986, with the implementation of the recommendation of Finance Commission which was accepted by the Government Order dated 5.6.1991 with effect from 01.01.1986.
The clause 2 of the Government Order dated 5.6.1991 categorically provides that the two posts of "Live Stock Extension Officer" and "Live Stock Extension Inspector" were merged to one post "Live Stock Extension Officer" w.e.f 1.1.1986 and the persons working as "Live Stock Extension Inspector" would also be entitled to the payscale of Rs.1200-2040/- w.e.f 1.1.1986, revised payscale accorded to the post of "Live Stock Extension Officer" vide Government Order dated 19.7.1989.
It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid disparity in the payscale of "Live Stock Extension Officer" who were working prior to 1.1.1986 and, thereafter, has been removed w.e.f 29.11.2007 and there is no difference as on date.
The Government Order dated 2.4.1992 having no rationale for making classification within the same class, is hereby quashed to the said extent, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to place the petitioners in the payscale of Rs.1350-2200/- w.e.f 1.1.1986 and pay them arrears as early as possible."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order alongwith other documents was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed envelope to the office within three weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the applicant the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 A. Pandey