Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan & Anr. vs Narendra Kumar Chobdar & Ors. on 11 December, 2014
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Prakash Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
1.D.B.Civil Review Petition No.95/2014
The State of Rajasthan & anr. V/s Narendra Kumar Chobdar & ors.
2.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.760/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Narendra Kumar & ors.
3.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.761/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Dr.Rajendra Prasad & anr.
4.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.762/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Dr.Prashant Panwar & ors.
5.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.865/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Dr.Rameshwar Prasad Sharma &
ors.
6.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.866/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Dr.Deeraghram Ramsnehi & ors.
7.D.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.867/2014
Pradeep Sen & anr. V/s Suresh Chandra & ors.
Date of Judgment::- 11.12.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Mr.N.M.Lodha,Advocate General with )
Mr.Rajesh Panwar, AAG )
Mr.Suni Joshi )-for petitioners-appellants
Mr.V.D.Dadhich )
Mr.Pradeep Sen, Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Education Department
present in person.
Mr.M.R.Singhvi,Senior Advocate with )
Mr.Mohit Singhvi )
Mr.Rajesh Joshi )
Dr.Nupur Bhati )-for the respondents.
Mr.Ravindra Singh )
2
JUDGMENT
(Reportable) BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, Actg.CJ)
1. We have heard learned Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr.Pradeep Sen, Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Education Department, Government of Rajasthan has appeared in person and has also addressed the Court.
2. The review application is reported to be delayed by 1040 days.
3. In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit and additional affidavit, it is stated that the Librarians and Physical Training Instructors (PTI) in the Sanskrit Education Department, Government of Rajasthan had filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9269/2010 (Narendra Kumar Chobdar and ors. V/s State of Rajasthan and others decided on 18.1.2011) claiming pay scales equal to Librarians and PITs, ordinary scale, senior scale and selection grade, with effect from the date when the same was made available to the Librarians and PITs working in the Government Colleges with effect from 1988, and thereafter, with effect from 1.1.1996 and also claimed consequential benefits including arrears and interest. During the pendency of the Special Appeal, the compliance of the order of Single Bench dated 18.1.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9269/2010 was made, subject to the decision of the Special Appeal. The Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.7.2011. Since the order of Single Bench was already complied with by the review-petitioners, the State did not agitate the matter further and order was passed on 3 1.11.2013 giving the benefits of initial pay scale to the Librarians and PTIs from 1.1.2006 notionally. The actual benefit was granted from the date of filing of the writ petition.
4. In contempt petition no.205/11, Narendra Kumar Chobdar & ors. V/s Shri Ashok Sampatram and ors., an order was passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.4.2014 punishing the opposite-parties for non-compliance of the order of the High Court. Since the compliance was already made vide orders dated 27.6.2011 and 1.11.2013, which was not found by the High Court to be complete compliance, considering the matter for clarity of directions issued by the Court, it was decided in Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case and in respect of which clear directions were not given and that the writ- petitioners, who were in any case not entitled to arrears, prior to their joining of the Colleges for applicability of the UGC pay scales, the State was advised to file a review petition to review the judgment dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Division Bench and that of learned Single Judge, from which the Special Appeal had arisen, for a clarification.
5. The review petition was filed on 30.6.2014 in the compelling circumstances in which the opposite-parties-contemners were punished for an order which did not give clear directions and which, according to the opposite-parties, requires sufficient clarity, as it involved financial matters.
6. The applicants have also filed appeals against the judgment and order by which the contempt petitions were allowed and the opposite parties-contemners were punished with seven days' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-.
4
7. In reply to the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that when the judgments were not complied with for giving the benefit of UGC pay scales to the writ-petitioners with effect from the date of their initial joining, there was no option left except to file contempt petitions, which were heard at length. During the hearing, it was never suggested that the State is contemplating to file a review petition. The review is ordinarily not maintainable after such a long delay and that in any case, after the contemners have been punished, the review petition should not be entertained and the long delay in filing the same is not liable to be condoned.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the order in the contempt petitions, by which the State functionaries have been held to be guilty and punished, is based on the judgment, which is not sufficiently clear. The question as to whether arrears have to be paid from the date of initial joining or from the date when the writ-petitioners joined in the Colleges as Librarians, PTIs and Lecturers or from 1.1.2006 or from the date of filing of the writ petition was not decided with any clarity. There are variety of directions given in the orders passed in different writ petitions, and for which the appeals have been filed against the orders passed in the contempt petitions.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that hearing of the review petition is necessary for giving effective relief to the petitioners as well as clarifying the directions with regard to the date of compliance of the judgment.
10. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The review petition shall be treated to have been filed in time and was heard 5 alongwith the appeals.
11. By the review petition, the State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur have sought review of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.7.2011 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1430/2011 and other connected appeals arising out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 18.1.2011 allowing the writ petitions and granting reliefs to the petitioners with directions to implement the judgments in (1) Rajasthan University and Colleges Physical Education Teachers Association & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.608/1982) decided on 8.10.1990 by the Jaipur Bench of the Court, (2) Laxmi Narain Sharma & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petitin No.6324/1998) decided on 30.10.2001 against which D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.486/2002 was dismissed on 15.4.2009 and the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) on 15.1.2010, (3) Kalicharan Bhattacharya V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.444/1988) decided on 22.2.1991, against which Special Appeal was dismissed on 19.9.1994, and (4) Dr.Rajendra Prasad Mishra V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.260/2002), which finally decided on 29.3.2005 following the judgment in Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case (supra).
12. The writ petition in Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case (supra) was decided on 22.2.1991 by learned Single Judge holding that the Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges are also entitled to the pay-scales 6 recommended by the University Grants Commission. The judgment in Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case (supra) was followed in Laxmi Narain Sharma's case (supra) and which gave rise to spate of writ petitions filed by various grades of teachers and employees serving with the Sanskrit Colleges in capacity of Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians. In these writ petitions, this Court decided and declared that the Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians working in the Government Sanskrit Colleges are entitled to the pay scales recommended by the UGC, which is being paid to the other Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians in Government Colleges. It was held that the State Government cannot create anomaly by denying the applicability of regular UGC pay scales to the Lecturers, PTIs and Librarians in Government Sanskrit Colleges. All the intra-court appeals filed in the High Court and thereafter, the Special Leave Petitions filed in the Supreme Court, were dismissed. Following the judgments in Rajasthan University and Colleges Physical Education Teachers Association & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) decided on 8.10.1990, Kalicharan Bhattacharya's case (supra) was decided on 22.2.1991 and Laxmi Narain Sharma's case was decided on 30.10.2001.
13. Some of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and the writ petitions, which were decided in terms of the directions by the aforesaid judgments, filed contempt petitions including S.B.Civil Misc.Contempt Petition No.205/2011 Narendra Kumar Chobdar & Ors. V/s Shri Ashok Sampatram & ors. alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by the Court. On issuance of the notices, replies were submitted on behalf of the opposite-parties-contemners annexing therewith a letter dated 20th May, 2011, whereby financial 7 sanction was granted for implementation of the judgment. An additional affidavit of one Rewatram was filed, in which it was stated that grant of Senior and Selection Scale cannot be withheld on account of pendency of orientation/refresher course. In response to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, a reply was filed by Shri Mandan Sharma, the then Director, Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan, clarifying that the requirement of orientation/refresher course vis-a-vis PTIs and Librarians was inconsequential and further, that the relaxation on point no.7 of the UGC guidelines is not applicable to PITs and Librarians. They are required to undergo orientation/refresher course for promotion.
14. A compliance report was submitted on 8th January, 2013, in response of the Court's order dated 3rd January, 2013 indicating that vide orders dated 2nd July, 2011, the benefit of pay scale of Rs.15600- 39100 with AGP of Rs.6,000/- has been granted to 5 Librarians and 16 PTIs from 4th October, 2010 i.e. from the date of filing of the writ petition.
15. The applicants insisted that under the orders of the Court, which had become final upto the Supreme Court, the benefit of UGC pay scales including the promotional pay-scales must be given from the date of their initial appointment, on which, on 17th September, 2013, Additional Advocate General appeared in the matter submitted before the Court that directions issued by the Court on 18th January, 2011 shall be complied with and the benefits accrued to the petitioners shall be granted from the date of their initial appointment. The statement given by Additional Advocate General was not complied with by the State Government, on which, this Court, after hearing the counsel 8 appearing for the parties, and considering the records, was of the view that the opposite-parties-contemners are guilty of committing contempt of Court. The unconditional apology was not accepted as it was not found to be sincere and bonafide, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Y.Shareef V/s Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (AIR 1955 SC 19). By the order dated 21st April, 2014, learned Single Judge, after holding the respondents- contemners, namely, Shri Pradeep Sen and Dr.Mandan Sharma guilty of civil contempt, sentenced them to seven days' simple imprisonment. The sentence awarded in the contempt petitions were directed to run concurrently. The respondents-contemners were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in each contempt petition, which they were required to pay individually. The sentences awarded were suspended for a period of 60 days. The respondents were also directed to ensure compliance of the verdict of the Court in letter and spirit, by allowing pecuniary benefits to all the petitioners in their wage structures and grant of senior and selection scales by reckoning their services from the date of initial appointment, within a period of two months.
16. In these appeals, it is submitted that learned Single Judge in holding the appellants guilty of contempt of Court, has failed to consider that there was no such direction in any of the writ petitions to pay the arrears calculated on the differential of the payment of UGC pay-scales from the date of initial appointment. The entire judgment is based upon the concession given by Additional Advocate General, who was not authorized to such concession and that he had immediately, without any delay, filed an application on 8.11.2013 to 9 withdraw the consent as he was not authorized and entitled to give any assurance. Shri Anand Purohit, Addl.Advocate General had filed application on 08.11.2013, in which he had stated in paragraph 3 as follows:-
"3. That in the first place, it is submitted that the judgment dated 18.1.2011 is being complied as per its letter and spirit having regard to the entitlement of each of the petitioners. The assurance was not given by the humble undersigned that the benefits will be granted to the petitioners from the date of appointment. And if at all, this is treated to be an assurance given by humble undersigned, then the same may be withdrawn."
No orders were passed on the application by the Court before holding the appellants guilty of contempt.
17. It is submitted by learned Advocate General that the contempt petitions were filed against Shri Ashok Sampatram and others. Shri Pradeep Sen was added as a party-respondent to the contempt petition on 12.3.2014.
18. It is submitted that in Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers `Association and ors. V/s State of Rajasthan (supra), in the operative portion of the judgment dated 8.10.1990, while allowing the writ petition, Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Bhargava (as he then was) directed as follows:-
"In the result, this writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the Directors of Physical Education/Librarians/Physical Education Teachers/Physical Education Instructors working in the Universities and various government and non government aided colleges affiliated to the University are entitled to the upgrade scales of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1980. It is further directed that the State Government should make payment of the arrears within 10 six months from today positively. No order as to costs."
19. In the judgment in Kalicharan Bhattacharya V/s State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.444/1988) decided on 22.2.1991, Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.L.Mehta (as he then was) issued directions as follows:
"In the result, the writ petition is accepted. State Government is directed to pay equal pay like other Lecturers of general Colleges to the Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 6.2.1988 with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today.
Costs made easy."
20. In Laxmi Narain Sharma & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6324/1998) decided on 30.10.2001, Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.K.Keshote (as he then was) held in operative portion of the order as follows:-
"As a result of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. It is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled for the upgraded UGC pay scales i.e. Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 01.04.1980. In case, after 01.04.1980, this upgraded pay scales are revised, the petitioner shall also be entitled for the revised pay scales. The respondents are directed to revise and fix the pay of all the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 01.04.1980 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later. In case, the pay scales are further revised, the respondents are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners as per the pay scales revised from time to time. The arrears of the fixation of the pay are to be determined and paid to the petitioners accordingly. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get interest on the arrears of pay fixation @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 01.12.1998. The amount of interest which is payable to the petitioners on the arrears pay fixation shall also be determined by the respondents. All this exercise are to be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of six months 11 from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."
21. In Dr.Rajendra Prasad Mishra V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.260/2002) decided on 29.3.2005, Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.P.Vyas (as he then was) in the operative portion of the judgment held as follows:-
"Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. In view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya (supra) and the respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.16400-22400 to the petitioner in place of 11300-16200 as provided under the Rules of 1999 from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e. 13.12.2001, with all consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from today.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs."
22. In Dr.Prashant Panwat and ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8418/2010) decided on 25.10.2010, Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vineet Kothari held in the operative portion of the judgment as follows:-
"In view of the aforesaid legal position and the controversy being squarely covered, this Court is not inclined to reopen the controversy any more and the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court time and again and therefore, it is high time that the respondents should implement the said judgments in letter and spirit and provide the same relief and treatment to the Lecturers of the Sanskrit Colleges and pay the same pay and allowances as is being paid to the Lecturers of other general Colleges.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as aforesaid. The compliance by way of giving all consequential benefits may be made within a period of three months from today. No costs."12
23. It is submitted by learned Advocate General that in none of the writ petitions, any such relief was given that the UGC pay scales will be applicable to any of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. The word "initial appointment' was interpreted by learned Single Judge, on his own, by adopting a process of reasoning, which had no genesis or basis in any of the operative portion of the judgments, opined at page 22 of the judgment, as follows:-
"Upon thrashing out the matters in entirety, more particularly, the verdict in Rajasthan University and College Physical Education and Teachers' Association's case (supra) and Laxmi Narain Sharma's case (supra), which are referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge with a clear direction to make compliance of these verdicts in letter and spirit, there remains no room of doubt that the writ court has granted relief to the petitioners while relying on the earlier declaratory verdict. From the recitals contained in both these judgments, more particularly, the operative portions, it is crystal clear that entitlement of the petitioners for the benefits of pay-scales and grant of senior and selection scales is required to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of filing of the writ petitions as urged by the respondents."
24. It is submitted that all the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of pay scales and grant of senior and selection scales from the date of their initial appointment. Only those, who were directly appointed with the Sanskrit Colleges as Lecturers/PTIs/Librarians were entitled to the UGC pay-scales from the date of their appointment in the Colleges. The UGC pay scales are not applicable to the teachers and employees serving in Schools. Some of the petitioners were working as Sanskrit Teachers and employees in the 13 Schools. In their cases, they could be given UGC pay scales, only after they had joined the service in the Colleges.
25. Learned Advocate General states that the entire order by which the conviction has been recorded and the Senior Officers of the State have been punished, is based on the interpretation of the operative portions given by learned Single Judge on his own reasoning in the contempt matters. The appellants have not disobeyed the orders of the Court in any manner whatsoever. The orders have been fully complied with and that the arrears have been worked-out and given to all the petitioners in accordance with their entitlement and in compliance of the judgments of the High Court from the dates they are serving in Sanskrit Colleges.
26. It is submitted that in these contempt petitions, only those persons who were initially appointed as Sanskrit Teachers in the Schools and were later-on posted in the Colleges, have made grievances to get an unfair advantage of the benefit of UGC pay scales from the date of their initial appointment in the Schools. They had successfully tried to mislead the Court in the contempt matters and in the process, the Senior Officers of the State have been harassed and punished.
27. Learned Advocate General has placed on record the details of the claim worked out and paid to the petitioners from the date of their appointment in the Colleges. In the order of Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the details of the payments given with reference to the contempt petitions including the contempt petition no.205/2011 Shri Narendra Kumar Chobdar V/s Shri Ashok Sampatram and ors., and other petitioners-applicants, in compliance 14 of the directions of the Court. The arrears have been worked out from the date of their joining in the Colleges. The details would show that 24 persons including Narendra Kumar Chobdar at serial no.1 have been paid the arrears by depositing in their bank accounts. For example, Shri Narendra Kumar Chobdar serving in Government Aacharya Sanskrit College, Bikaner was paid Rs.7,84,226/-, Shri Heeralal Gurjar working in the Directorate, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur was paid Rs.57,88,075/- and in the same manner all the petitioners-applicants have received the payments. For some of them, the payments have been worked out for the amount of more than 50 lacs, namely, Shri Amar Singh Yadav- Rs.51,75,577/-, Shri Shailendra Jain- Rs.55,05,558, Shri Brajesh Kumar Sharma- Rs.52,32,609/-, Shri Rewat Ram Khoja-Rs.56,95,454/- and Smt.Gayatri Soni-Rs.51,32,083/-. All these amounts have been deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioners-applicants in the month of July, 2014.
28. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has repeated the same arguments, which were raised before learned Single Judge. He submits that all the respondents-petitioners were entitled to be paid, under the orders of the High Court, the differential amount of their pay received by them and the UGC pay scales as well as the promotional pay scales with effect from the date of their initial appointment. He has cleverly dodged the question as to whether any of the petitioners working as Teachers in the Schools prior to their joining Colleges was entitled to UGC pay scales. He has only harped on the undertaking given by Additional Advocate General and had nothing to say when it was pointed-out that the undertaking was 15 withdrawn at the first available opportunity.
29. We have not been shown any direction of the Court that the payments of differential amount had to be calculated from the date of initial appointment. No such direction was given in any of the writ petitions. At best, the directions were for payment from the date of their entitlement or from the date of filing of the writ petition. The first direction given in Rajasthan University and Colleges Physical Education Teachers Association & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) to pay the arrears from the date when the UGC pay-scales had become applicable was in respect of those Lecturers/PTIs/Librarians, who were working in the Colleges. This Court had never given any direction to pay UGC pay-scales to the PTIs and Librarians working in the Sanskrit Schools. In our view, no such direction could be given, inasmuch as, a school Teacher is not entitled to the pay scales recommended by the UGC.
30. We are pained to observe that despite the clarity of law as well as the directions issued by the Court, the respondents-petitioners and their counsel insisted upon getting arrears to which they were not entitled. A web was spun, to misrepresent the facts in Court, in which the respondents-petitioners successfully trapped the Principal Secretary, Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan as well as the Director, Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan. We strongly condemn the respondents-petitioners, for having misled the Court and making false statement in Court that they have not received the difference of pay from the date of joining the Colleges, despite an orders produced in Court and subsequently, admitting that the amounts of which details have been provided have been credited 16 to their bank accounts.
31. We take strong exception to the conduct of the respondents- petitioners and their counsel, in misrepresenting the facts and misleading the Court in the proceedings of the contempt petition. The Court's proceedings are sacrosanct and should not be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondents for their conduct must pay compensatory cost to the appellants and thus, we direct that each of the respondent will pay Rs.10,000/- to be apportioned between the appellants for having suffered harassment and humiliation of appearing in Court on several dates and attracting the conviction of seven days' simple imprisonment and fine. The amount will be deducted directly from the salary of the respondents and will be paid to the appellants as cost of litigation and compensation for harassment and humiliation.
33. All the contempt appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 21st April, 2014 is set aside.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the review petition is disposed of.
35. A copy of this judgment will be kept in all the connected cases.
(PRAKASH GUPTA), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ. Parmar