Allahabad High Court
Vandhana Singh And Others vs Javed Usmani, Chief Secry. And ... on 9 July, 2013
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 40
Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 4930 of 2012
Smt. Vandhana Singh & others ........ Applicants.
Javed Usmani, Chief Secretary, ........ Opp. Parties.
U.P. Government, Lucknow & others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging will disobedience of the judgment and order dated 5.4.2002 passed on writ petition no. 18619 of 2001 as well as leading writ petition no. 12879 of 2001 along with other connected writ petitions.
Undisputed facts are that a non-formal educational scheme was introduced by the Central Government in the year 1979-80 for imparting education to children in the age group 6 to 14 who either did not attend any school or left the studies before completing primary education. The scheme was implemented in the State of U.P. under the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. In order to successful run the scheme, certain posts including the post of Supervisor were created at various levels. Later on in the year 1987-88, the scheme was modified and it was given shape of a project and in order to meet the requirements of the project, which came to be known Non-formal Education Project, various posts including the post of Project Officer was created by the Government Order dated 30.3.1988. Since the project itself was temporary in nature, the Government Order visualized that all posts should be temporary and liable to be abolished at any time without any prior information. The applicants claimed that they were selected and appointed on adhoc basis in 1989 under the pay scale 6500-10500. Subsequently, the scheme was not extended by the State Government and the applicants and various other similarly situated persons filed various writ petitions before this Court which were connected and decided vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2002 passed on leading writ petition no. 12879 of 2001. The writ petitions were allowed in part by passing the following order :
"Accordingly, the petitions succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned order 23.3.2001 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider the feasibility of protection of pay and status of the petitioners after taking into reckoning all the relevant factors stated in this judgement and if necessary to modify its order dated 24.3.2001 accordingly."
State Government went up in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was registered as civil appeal no. 8658 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by making following observations :
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that the direction by the High Court to the Government to consider the question of protection of pay and status of the writ petitioners in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment, does not warrant our interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
However, having regard to the fact that the issue is handing fire for over 10 years, we would request the authorities concerned to take a final decision in the matter, as expeditiously as practicable and in any case, not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "
After the dismissal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicants made representation to the opposite parties on 22.12.2011 and again sent a reminder on 16.7.2012. However, when no decision was taken they approached the Court by filing the instant contempt application under Section 12 of the Act. Vide order dated 29.10.2012 the opposite parties were put to notice giving an opportunity to comply with the order within a month, failing which they were required to appear personally before the Court.
Opposite party no. 3 Director of Education (Basic) filed an affidavit on 15.1.2013. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it has been stated that in compliance of the order a decision was taken at the level of the State Government on 27.9.2012 in consultation with the Finance Department, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no. 1 to the affidavit. It has also been stated in paragraph 8 that representation made by the applicants was also disposed of by a separate order dated 4.12.2012 in the light of the decision already taken on 27.9.2012, copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure no. 2 to the affidavit. The decision taken on the representation by the opposite parties in the light of the judgment of this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under :
" bl lEca/k esa 'kklu }kjk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr dh x;h fo'ks"k vuqKk ;kpfdk la[;k [email protected] fnukad 01 fnlEcj] 20011 esa fn, x;s vkns'kksa ds dze esa iquZfopkj djrs gq, foRr foHkkx }kjk dh x;h fVIi.kh ds izdk'k esa fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&
ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ds inks ij in/kkjd dze'k% osru :i;k 6500&10500 ,oa 5000 ls 8000 esa rSukr FksA NBs osru vk;ksx ds lanHkZ esabu osruekuksa ds lekU; iqujh{k.k dze'k% osru cSaM &2 :0 9300 &34800 ,oa xzsM osru :0 4600 ,oa osru cSaM &2 :0 9300 &34800 ,oa xszM osru :0 4200 gksrk gSA bu in/kkjdks dks dze'k%osru cSM&2 9300&34800 ,oa xszM osru :i;k 4600 ,oa osru cSM &2 :i;k 9300& 34800 xszM osru :i;k 4200 ds inks ij rSukrh fn, tkus ls muds osru ,oa ,oa Lrj dk laj{k.k (protection of pay and status) gks tkrk gSA "
A rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating that the decision taken by the State Government cannot be termed as compliance of the order of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in letter and spirit and the State Government has wrongly processed the matter and tried to create confusion. Certain judicial pronouncements have been referred in the rejoinder affidavit for the proposition of violation of the natural justice, concept of restitution and also the proposition that a conduct of a party assumes significance in moulding the reliefs and to do complete justice between the parties, all relevant aspect of the matter are to be considered. As a matter of fact, the averments in the rejoinder affidavit and thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is to challenge the merits of decision taken by the State Government.
It is well settled that the legality and the merits of the order passed by an authority in compliance of the directions issued by the Court is not normally to be tested in contempt jurisdiction. It is only in the case where on the face of it, the compliance appears to be an eyewash and order passed by the court does not appear to be carried out in letter and spirit, the contempt court may test the order passed by the authority in order to satisfy itself whether there is actual compliance or it is merely an eyewash in order to avoid contempt proceeding.
In the present case, the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was to reconsider the feasibility of protection of pay and status of the applicants. On an analysis of the entire facts and circumstances as well as decision taken by the State Government in compliance of the order, this Court finds that the order passed by the Division Bench has been complied in letter and spirit and it cannot be said to be a merely eyewash in order to wriggle out of the contempt proceeding. In so far as the legality and merits of the order on various grounds urged on behalf of the applicants, it is not for this Court to enter into the same. Needless to say that in such a situation the remedy of the applicants lies by undertaking appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.
Since the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of the Court, stands complied with in letter and spirit, the contempt proceedings are not liable to be proceeded any further. Contempt notice accordingly stand discharged.
Let the contempt petition be consigned to record.
Dt. 9.7.2013
nd.
