Gujarat High Court
Bimalbhai Dineshchandra Patni vs Sunaina Tomar on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/MCA/1043/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1043 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17783 of 2015
=============================================
BIMALBHAI DINESHCHANDRA PATNI
Versus
SUNAINA TOMAR
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR.D.M.DEVNANI, AGP (1) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Opponent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 24/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR)
[1] The present contempt proceedings have been
initiated alleging willful disobedience of the order dated
02.05.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17783
of 2015 whereunder the learned Single Judge having
allowed the petition has passed the following order:
"13. Resultantly, this petition is ALLOWED. The
communication rejecting representation of the
petitioners by respondent being discriminated deserve
to be set aside. Petitioners shall be given the benefit of
C/MCA/1043/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2022
State of Gujarat vs. P.W.D. Employees' Union and all
G.R. following the said decision on completion of 10
years service, shall be made availed for all
consequential benefits of service treating them as
permanent on their part."
[2] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment,
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred an appeal in
Letters Patent Appeal No.118 of 2020, which has been
admitted vide order dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure-III) and
following order came to be passed:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the respective
parties, as an interim measure, it is provided that the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and
the directions contained in paragraph no.13 thereof,
shall be implemented by the appellant, except, the
last part of the said order "treating them as
permanent on their part". this above part shall
remain stayed. All other benefits admissible to
respondents nos. 1 and 2 would be extended by
the appellant within a period of three months."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
[3] The thrust of the argument of Mr. Dipak R. Dave,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complainants
is that only portion of the order of the learned Single Judge
C/MCA/1043/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2022
directing the complainants to be treated as permanent
has been stayed and all other directions issued by learned
Single Judge have been directed to be implemented by
contemnors and yet in its true letter and spirit the
respondents No. 2 and 3 herein have not implemented or
in other words he would contend though the pay scale
that has been extended as per the resolution dated
17.10.1988 is by granting 5th pay commission pay scale
and for unknown reasons they have withheld the payment
of extending the pay scale of 6 th and 7th pay commission to
which complainant is entitled to as per order passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2020 and as such he
contends that there is willful disobedience of the order.
[4] In the counter affidavit dated 29.12.2020 filed by
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has specifically been
contended in paragraph No. 8 that many of the employees
are aggrieved by non grant of 7 th pay scale and they have
been agitating the same. In other words, it has been
denied that all the juniors officers having been extended
the 7th pay scale. It is also the stand of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 that it has not received the approval from the
C/MCA/1043/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2022
State Government to pay 7th pay scale to all its employee
and as such it has not been extended . That apart, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, as partly
affirmed by in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2020, does
not indicate that respondents therein, namely, respondent
No. 2 and 3 herein having been directed to pay the pay
scale of 6th and 7th pay commission. Hence, continuation
of contempt proceeding is not warranted and reserving
liberty to the applicants to seek for appropriate directions
in the pending Letters Patent Appeal, if so advised,
present contempt proceedings stands closed.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
