Man Mohan Singh vs Dheeraj Gupta And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 692 j&K

                                                                Case No. 205
                                                         (After Notice Cause List)



                HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
                          AT JAMMU

                                              CPLPA No. 29/2017 in
                                              LPASW No. 81/2002
                                              IA Nos. 01/2017 & 01/2018
                                              CM No. 1159/2019 (01/2019)

Man Mohan Singh                                     .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)


                     Through: Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate.
                Vs
Dheeraj Gupta and ors.                                     ..... Respondent(s)


                     Through: Mr. F.A Natnoo, AAG

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

09.07.2021 (Open Court)

1. This is a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of directions

dated 16.10.2000 passed in writ petition bearing SWP No. 1584/1997

as also the judgment and order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the

Division Bench, whereby the writ Court judgment aforementioned

was upheld. The writ Court had upheld the right of the petitioner for

placement in the scale of 950-1500 w.e.f 17.04.1995.

2. In the first round of contempt jurisdiction, Contempt (LPA) No.

27/2015 was filed in which the official respondents informed the

Court that the petitioner was entitled to the arrears amounting to Rs

8,50,122/-, which amount was stated would be paid to the petitioner

within two weeks. This was recorded so by the Division Bench in its

order dated 31.12.2016. What was observed by the Division Bench in

paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 in the said order is reproduced herein below:-

LPASW No. 81/2002

"3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has

now produced calculation of arrears amounting to Rs.8,50,122.00 and submits that the said amount will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. 4 Recording the said submission, the contempt proceedings are closed. However, it is made clear that if the amount is not paid to the petitioner within the said period and if there is any defect in the calculation, it is open to the petitioner to file fresh claim and agitate the matter."

3. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition which is

second in line to agitate that the official respondents were

miscalculating the amount, which was payable as arrears to the

petitioner inasmuch as they were wrongly calculating the date with

effect from which the in situ promotion was to be given and the

date from which the service of the petitioner was to be reckoned

which ought to have been 1990, when the petitioner was initially

engaged as a daily wager. However, we can see from the record

that the issue before the Courts in the first round of litigation was

with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for placement in the

grade of 950-1500 and his right to receive the arrears. Any dispute

with regard to calculation of the period for in situ promotions etc.

would be beyond the scope of the present contempt petition.

Another thing, which was highlighted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that even out of an amount of Rs. 8,50,122/-,

which the petitioner was held entitled to in regard to which a

statement was made before the Division Bench and recorded so in

its order dated 31.12.2016, the respondents were now recovering

an amount of Rs. 3, 97, 247/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner

LPASW No. 81/2002

states that the official respondents cannot be permitted to blow hot

and cold with a view to create suspense in regard to the actual

payment that the petitioner is entitled to. It was stated that the

official respondents having calculated the arrears at

Rs. 8, 50, 122/- and having placed the figure before the Division

Bench and having undertaken to pay the same within a period of

two weeks ought to be estopped from resiling from the said

statement, questioning the calculation made by them and initiating

recovery proceedings. There is considerable merit in what is stated

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is some sanctity

attached to statement made in a Court of law especially when

made before no less than a Division Bench of this High Court. The

calculation which was made by the official respondents reflected

that Rs. 8,50,122/- was payable to the petitioner. While closing the

contempt proceedings on 31.12.2016, the option to question the

defect in calculation was only made available to the petitioner and

not to the respondents and rightly so.

4. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the official respondents

cannot now question the amount calculated by them at Rs.

8,50,122/- and consequently are not entitled to recover the same

from the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, if there is any issue with regard to the benefits of

in situ promotions which the petitioner feels have not been

properly given to the petitioner, it would be open to raise those

issues in appropriate proceedings but certainly not in this contempt

petition.

LPASW No. 81/2002

6. In that view of the matter, the present contempt proceedings are

closed.

                                             (Puneet Gupta)              (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                                    Judge                               Judge
              Jammu
              09.07.2021
              Tarun

                                          Whether the order is speaking?   Yes/No
                                          Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No




TARUN KUMAR GUPTA
2021.07.13 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document