Bombay High Court
Ku.Shashikala Farida Raipure And ... vs Mr. Anupkumar Yadav, Principal ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
1 10 cp 141-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAN) NO.22/2022
Ku Shashikala Farida Raipure and others
Vs.
Mr. Anupkumar Yadav and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. Ramaswami, Advocate h/f R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent No.2
Ms M.R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATED : 05.05.2022
Heard.
2. For the reason stated in the application, the
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause. The
application is disposed of.
3. Issue notice to newly added respondent no.1.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.141/2020
Heard Shri S. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the
respondent no.2 and Ms Chandurkar, learned Counsel
appears for Gayatri Mishra, Joint Secretary, Union of
India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2 10 cp 141-2020
2. On going through the judgment of which the non-
compliance has been alleged, we find that the directions
given in the judgment are required to be complied with
only by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that respondent
No.3, being representative of the Union of India, has no
role to play in the matter. She, therefore, is discharged as
respondent No.3 from this petition.
3. In the judgment rendered on 14.11.2019, non-
compliance of which has been complained in this
contempt petition, this Court had expressed the opinion
that no discrimination between the employees like
petitioners and other employees of the State Government
and the local body could be made regarding the
extension of the benefits of the Pay Commissions and,
therefore, the discrimination made against these
petitioners in the matter, was held not sustainable in the
eye of law. In paragraph No.11, this Court held that the
petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the Pay
Commissions at par with that of other similarly situated
employees and, therefore, directions were given that the
benefits of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations be extended to the petitioners, for the
purpose of pay fixation and also fixation of the pension
w.e.f. 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006
respectively. This Court also directed to pay the arrears
of the salary/pension to the petitioners subject to the bar
of limitation.
3 10 cp 141-2020
4. The above referred directions though had been
given to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for extending
benefits of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations to the petitioners, these directions also
obliged the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay all similarly
situated employees, the extended benefits of 4th, 5th and
6th Pay Commission recommendations, which is evident
from the opinion expression by this Court which has been
reproduced earlier. At the costs of repetition, we may say,
the opinion expressed by this Court was that no
discrimination between the employees like the petitioners
and other employees of the State Government and local
bodies could be made regarding the extension of Pay
Commission recommendations. Thus, it would be clear
that the benefits of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations are required to be extended not only to
the contempt petitioner but also to all similarly situated
employees of respondent No.2- Municipal Corporation,
Chandrapur and responsibility for extending its benefits
to all employees of respondent No.2 falls jointly and
severally upon respondent Nos.1 and 2. If the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 understand their joint and several
responsibility in this matter and discharge responsibility
by extending benefits of the 4th, 5th and 6th Pay
Commission recommendations and pay the arrears in
terms of judgment in question, to all the employees of
respondent No.2 Corporation, multiplicity of litigation
4 10 cp 141-2020
would be avoided. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not
discharge their responsibility in such a manner, there
would be other employees of respondent No.2, who
would be aggrieved for not extending benefits to them,
and would be compelled to again approach this Court.
5. In this view of the matter, we direct newly added
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to extend benefits of 4 th, 5th and
6th Pay Commission recommendations to all the similarly
situated employees of respondent No.2 Corporation, in
terms of the judgment dated 14.11.2019, which is a
judgment in rem and hence applicable to all similarly
situated employees, at the earliest and in any case on or
before next date of hearing.
6. Stand over to 11.07.2022.
(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed By:RANJANA SAMEER
SAHARE
Signing Date:06.05.2022 15:58
