Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V Sureshkumar vs Home Affairs on 12 January, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Contempt of Court Petition No.21 of 2023
in
Original Application No.180/716/2022
Friday, this the 12th day of January, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
V. Suresh Kumar, Aged 66 years, S/o. N. Vasudevan
(IPS Retired Superintendent of Police)
(Last retired as Superintendent of Police Vigilance and
Anticorruption Bureau, Eastern Range, Kottayam)
Residing at Suryamangalam, Nangiarkulangara P.O
Harippad, Alappuzha District, Pin - 690513.
- Petitioner/2nd Applicant in O.A.No.716/2022
[By Advocates: Mr. Jayadhar V, Mr.Hafy Punthala Wilson]
Versus
1. V.P. Joy IAS,(Age and father's name not known to the
petitioner),Chief Secretary,Government Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
- Respondent/2nd respondent in O.A.716/2022
2. Dr. B. Venu IAS, Chief Secretary to Government of
Kerala,Government Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
Impleaded vide order dt. 24/08/2023 in MA 752/2023
- Additional Respondent
C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 2
[By Advocates: Mr. Baijuraj G, Sr.GP
Mrs. O.M.Shalina, SCGSC]
The application having been heard on 05.01.2024, the Tribunal
on 12.01.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal The applicant in this Contempt of Court Petition is the 2 nd applicant in the Original Application. The Original Application filed by the applicant as well as two other former IPS Officers in Kerala Cadre, before induction into IPS, were Superintendents of Police (Non-Cadre- IPS) in the Kerala Police Service. They were aggrieved by the reduction in their salary even after inducting into Indian Police service. They complained that even after promoting to All India service, their salary was not increased, but reduced in refixation, thus they suffered heavy monetary loss. They filed representations, which were not considered and that made them to approach the Tribunal seeking to declare that they are entitled to have their pay fixed in the IPS Cadre on the basis of the pay drawn by them in Non-IPS Cadre as Superintendent of Police; the applicant claimed that he is entitled to have his pay fixed in C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 3 the scale of Rs.50,840/- in the time scale of Selection Grade Superintendent of Police in the IPS Cadre, from his respective date of eligibility.
2. When the taken up for admission, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel as well as the Senior Government Pleader took notice and the O.A. was disposed of on the following lines.
" 2.............When one of such matter had come up before us, the learned GP submitted that Government had taken the matter seriously and was attempting to evolve a formula satisfactory to both sides. We believe that Government will come out with a solution acceptable to the both sides. Having considered that, we are inclined to dispose of the present O.A. itself directing the applicants to make a comprehensive representations within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon the Government shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the formula which they may evolve within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation."
This order was passed on 21st December 2022. Aggrieved by the non- C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 4 compliance of the order the 2nd applicant has moved this Contempt Petition.
3. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the respondent, the Chief Secretary has produced a copy of the Government order dated 02.09.2023 and claimed that the directions have been complied with, so he has prayed for closing the Contempt Petition and discharging him.
4. When taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents should have considered the question of fixing the pay of the applicant on inducting into Police service based on the dictum in Union of India v. T.M.Somarajan and others [(2010) 1 SCC 129], but contrary to the same, fixation has not been done properly, that the respondent has not complied with the direction. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted that the pay has been fixed and orders have been issued following the extant guidelines and Rules. Based on the Government order it is pointed out that the pay of the applicant in IPS Cadre is C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 5 Rs.16,513/- more than the last pay drawn by him in the State Police Service. Moreover, it is submitted that the contention of the applicant is agreed to by fixing his initial pay on the basis of the last drawn pay of Rs.50,840/-, it would have resulted in inflated initial pay of Rs.1,04,576/- which is Rs.30,858/- more than the last drawn State pay. The year of allotment of the applicant is 2006. His retirement date from Indian Police Service was 30.11.2016. As such, the applicant had only 10 years of service in IPS and was eligible to draw pay in Junior Administrative Grade. However, his pay has been fixed in Selection Grade in IPS, which has to be given on 13 years of service in IPS, for protecting the last drawn State pay. The respondent thus maintained that he has complied with the direction in terms of T.M.Somarajan that and there is no reason to continue the Contempt of Court proceedings.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.
C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 6
6. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the decision in T.M.Somarajan has not been complied with and urged for reopening the O.A. suo motu. But we may hasten to say that we are not inclined to adopt such a course. We are sitting in a Contempt of Court proceedings. We have already extracted the relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 21.12.2022. The spirit of that order is that the representation given by the applicant should be considered. They were also allowed to submit further representations and the respondent was directed to consider and dispose of it within a period of three months therefrom. It is true that the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that there were similar such matters pending before the Tribunal and orders were also passed. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in the case of similarly placed IPS officers, pay fixation was done basing on the dictum in T.M.Somarajan, but in the benefit has not been extended to the applicant.
7. In the nature of the jurisdiction we are exercising, it is not C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 7 appropriate to go into the rival contentions raised by the parties. As noticed earlier, the contentions of the parties are contradictory. While the applicant submits that his salary has not been fixed appropriately, the respondent holds that it has been complied with and that the last drawn pay of the applicant is more than Rs.16,053/- than his last drawn pay in the Non-IPS cadre. The primary question in a Contempt of Court Petition, where civil contempt is alleged, is whether the direction issued by the Court has been complied with or not. It is true that within the time frame fixed by the Tribunal, the order was not passed. Even though belatedly, Annexure-R2-1 has been passed on 02.09.2023 fixing the salary of the applicant and his colleagues. In this limited jurisdiction, the only look out is whether the direction has been complied with. Legality and correctness of the order passed by the respondent is a different issue. Cause of action also is different. Recording the above, we are inclined to close the Contempt of Court proceedings. We make it clear that if the applicant is aggrieved, it is open to him to challenge the same appropriately.
C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 8
With the above observation, the Contempt of Court Petition is closed and the respondent shall stand discharged. No costs.
(Dated, this the 12th January, 2024)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
C.P. No.21/23 in O A No.716/22 9
List of Annexures
Annexure-P1: True copy of the order dated 21.12.2022 in O.A. No.
180/00716/2022
Annexure-P2: True copy of the representation dated 8.1.2023
submitted before the respondent by the petitioner. Annexure-R2-1: GO (Rt) No. 4046/2023/GAD dated 02.09.2023 **********