Allahabad High Court
Gyanendra Pratap Singh And ... vs Dheerendra Kumar Pandey, ... on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 980 of 2021
Applicant :- Gyanendra Pratap Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- Dheerendra Kumar Pandey, District Commandant Home Guards
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Pandey,Srestha Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
It is alleged that opposite party has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 24.5.2017 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 23333 of 2017, which is quoted as under:
"The petitioners are working as Block Organizers on 01.01.2006. It is stated that the respondents revised the pay scale of the petitioners and they were given Pay Band-I in the pay of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2000. They were also granted ACP in the year 2012. Vide impugned order, a direction has been issued for recovery of excess amount paid to them on the ground of erroneous pay fixation in the year 2006.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that after ten years, respondents can not recover the amount paid to the petitioners on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. It is further stated that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioners. The pay fixation was made strictly in terms of Government Order, which deals with the pay fixation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., J.T.2015(1) SC, 95, wherein Supreme Court has held that no recovery shall be made from Class III and IV employees, if excess amount has been pad to them.
Matter needs consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List on 09.10.2017.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive actions shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order."
It is stated that till date the said petition is pending and interim order is continuing.
It is not in dispute that no recovery pursuant to the above quoted order is being made.
Drawing attention to paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of this application wherein prayer clause of the writ petition has been quoted, submission is that now a fresh order reducing the pay-scale has been passed.
I find that in the above quoted order only it has been provided that in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) no coercive actions shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order. Second prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to reduce the basic pay-scale and make recoveries. Only recovery has been stayed and no relief not to reduce the pay-scale was granted by this Court in the above quoted interim order.
In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the order of the writ court is not being violated.
Present application is totally misconceived and is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Abhishek
