Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravendra Mishra vs Shri Neeraj Mandlo on 9 November, 2022
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CONC No. 1903 of 2020
(RAVENDRA MISHRA Vs SHRI NEERAJ MANDLO AND OTHERS)
Dated : 09-11-2022
Shri R.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manan Agrawal, counsel for the respondents.
This contempt petition is arising out of order dated 22/11/2019 passed in W.P. No. 6481/2019 by which this Court directed the respondents to execute the RRC expeditiously to recover the amount preferably within a period of three months.
The counsel contends that RRC was of Rs. 644057/- whereas the respondents have filed a compliance report alongwith Annexures R-1, R-2 and perusal of page 6 thereof reveals that as against RRC of Rs. 644057/- only an amount of Rs. 196518/- has been sanctioned thus, submits that alleged compliance is merely an eyewash and there is complete failure on the part of respondents while complying the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6481/2019.
Counsel for the respondents submits that the calculation submitted by the petitioner includes the amount of annual increment whereas the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. State of M.P. has made it clear that in case of classification as permanent employee, employee is only entitled to get the pay scale of the post but not the annual increment therefore, the calculation has been made by the department which comes to a total of Rs. 196518/- and the same has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner.
Having heard the rival submissions of the parties. This Court directed the respondents to execute the RRC. It is contended Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN NAGDEVE Signing time: 11/10/2022 11:29:00 AM 2 by the counsel for the petitioner that amount mentioned in the RRC is of Rs. 644057/- and once the said order has been issued by this Court, the respondents ought to have sought clarification from this Court but instead has only sanctioned the amount of Rs. 196518/-. The respondents have nowhere stated that any effort was made by them to seek review of order dated 22/11/2019 passed in W.P. No. 6481/2018. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this conduct of the respondents is required to be explained by the officer incharge of the case.
Accordingly, Officer Incharge of the case is directed to remain personally present before this Court on 22/11/2022.
List on 22/11/2022.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE navin Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN NAGDEVE Signing time: 11/10/2022 11:29:00 AM