Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

All J&K State Road Transport vs A.K. Mehta And Others on 17 October, 2022

       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT SRINAGAR

                                                          CCP(S) No. 133/2020
                                                            CM No. 1476/2021

                                              Pronounced on:         17.10.2022

All J&K State Road Transport                        .... Petitioners/Appellant(s)
Corporation (GTU) Pensioners
Welfare Association

                          Through:-    Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate.

                    V/s

A.K. Mehta and others                                         .....Respondent(s)

                          Through:-    Mr. Sajad Ashraf, G.A.
                                       Mr. Altaf Haqani, Senior Advocate
                                       with Ms. Irshada Rah, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                                 JUDGMENT

01. Petitioners have initiated proceedings in this contempt petition

against the respondents for non-compliance of judgment dated 17.12.2011

passed in SWP No. 1413/2009 and also order dated 21.02.2018 passed in

contempt petition No. 79/2012 titled 'All J&K SRTC Pensioners Welfare

Association vs. State and others'.

02. The writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1413/2009 was disposed of vide

order dated 17.12.2011, by directing as under:

"14. Viewed thus, the impugned letter dated 29th of January, 2008 bearing No. PNRJ-III/SRTC/2007-08/783 to the extent it subjects the payment of COLA to the availability of the own resources of J&K SRTC, is quashed. Resultantly, petitioners grievances/entitlement vis-a-vis pensionary benefits including COLA, leave salary as permanent employees of the State shall be finalized and the respondents irrespective of the financial condition of the respondent Corporation shall ensure release of the said benefits in favour of the petitioners within eight weeks from today failing which petitioners shall be entitled to the due amount with interest @ 6%..."

03. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 17.12.2011, the respondents-

State preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide order

dated 27.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner sought compliance of the

judgment dated 27.07.2012 by initiating proceedings in contempt petition

bearing No. 79 of 2012. This contempt petition was disposed of vide order

dated 21.02.2018 on the assurance of the respondents that the judgment

dated 17.12.2011 in principle has to be implemented and produced a

communication No. TR-03/SRTC/Legal/2018 dated 06.02.2018 in this

regard.

04. In terms of the aforesaid communication dated 06.02.2018, it was

conveyed that 50% of the amount would be released in both the cases in

compliance to the order dated 02.06.2016, passed in SWP No. 1147/2016

and SWP No. 1413/2009, out of the budgetary support provided by the

Finance Department for the last quarter, i.e., 4th installment of the financial

year 2017-18 and it was further conveyed by the Managing Director, J&K

SRTC that rest of the amount would be paid to the petitioners out of the first

installment budgetary support of the next financial year, i.e., 2018-19.

Accordingly, the proceedings in both the contempt petitions (Contempt

Petition Nos. 79/2012 and 757/2016) were closed.

05. The petitioners again filed a contempt petition bearing No. CPSW

No. 191/2018, on the ground that the respondents have not complied with

the judgment, despite the assurance extended by them and that though the

payment, due to the petitioners, was to be released in the financial year

2018-19, but the same was not paid to them. This contempt petition, i.e.,

CPSW No. 191/2018 was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2019 by

directing as under:

"12. It is made clear that the Court in contempt jurisdiction has to consider only whether the direction or judgment of the Court passed in regular proceedings, has been complied with nor not. It cannot go beyond the directions contained in the order; disobedience whereof is complained. In the present case respondent-Transport Department has complied the judgment in letter and spirit. Nevertheless, it is made clear that respondent- Finance Department is to provide funds to respondent-Transport Department for meeting all the pending/future grievance/entitlement of the petitioners vis-a-vis pensionary benefits including COLA, leave salary as permanent employees of the State, irrespective of the financial condition of respondent-SRTC, as has been ordained by this Court in terms of judgment dated 17th December, 2011 passed in SWP No. 1413/2009."

06. The petitioners not being satisfied with the aforesaid order dated

17.09.2019 preferred a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP No. 3571/2020

against the same. This SLP was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2020 by

observing as under:

"As the first installment was paid the High Court has discharged the notice. A grievance has been made that another installment has fallen due and has not been paid and some part of interest has also not been paid. This grievance can be raised in fresh contempt petition before the High Court. In case it is filed, the High Court has to examine the issue.

Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of."

07. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as

the respondents have not implemented the direction passed in judgments

dated 17.12.2011 and 17.09.2019, therefore, they have raised their

grievances again in the present contempt petition.

08. The respondent No. 2, however, in his compliance report has

submitted that the Finance Department has already released Rs. 20 Crores by

enhanced budgetary support in addition to the normal budgetary support of

Rs. 30 Crores to the Transport Department for clearance of their liabilities.

09. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the Finance

Department is not liable for the claim of the employees on account of arrears

of 6th Pay Commission and Leave Salary arrears, since the budgetary support

was provided after taking into consideration the resource position of the

State Government on the basis of overall performance and budget deficit of

the Corporation, as such, SRTC was required to meet the liability out of its

internal resources as the payment of pay and pay scales is an internal affair

of the Corporation which it may give to its employees with the prior

approval of Board of Directors provided their resources are sufficient to bear

the additional burden.

10. The Managing Director, JKSRTC vide communication No.

JKSRTC/MD/RHQ/J/1156 dated 20.12.2021 informed respondent No. 2 that

the total implication on account of 6% interest on delayed payment of COLA

arrears was worked out to be Rs. 1,40,12,195/-, out of which first installment

amount of Rs. 74,79,015/- was paid out of budgetary support of financial

year 2017-18 and the remaining installment amount to Rs. 65,33,280/- could

not be disbursed due to precarious financial position of the Corporation and

requested for release of funds amounting to Rs. 1,40,12,195/- for enabling

the concerned office to disburse the already due second installment of Rs.

65,33,280/-.

11. This proposal was examined by the Finance Department and vide

order No. FD-Leg/37/2021-03 dated 22.12.2021, the Transport Department

and JKSRTC were directed to release the balance amount of Rs. 65,33,280/-

in favour of the petitioners as the provision of the said amount has already

been kept in the revised estimates of 2021-22. The respondent No. 2, thus,

submitted that he has discharged his liabilities.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have filed a

supplementary affidavit submitting that the respondents have not paid them

the amount on account of COLA arrears and also cash-in-lieu of leave

salary.

13. Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 4, i.e., SRTC has stated that in compliance to the judgment

dated 17.12.2011, petitioners were held entitled to only pensionary benefits

including COLA arrears, leave salary and they were also held entitled to 6%

interest for delayed payment beyond the period of eight weeks i.e.,

17.12.2011. The answering respondents have paid the amount in final

settlement of the entitlements of the petitioners in terms of the judgment as

under:

          (i)     COLA arrears already paid = Rs. 16,92,70,237/-
          (ii)    Cash-in-lieu of leave salary = Rs. 3,09,05,414/-

(iii) Interest paid i.e. First Installment = Rs. 55,69,297/-

(iv) Interest paid i.e. Second Installment = 55,75,120/-

(v) Total amount paid = Rs. 21,13,20,068/-

14. It is further submitted that the issues with regard to payment of 6th

Pay Commission arrears and difference in leave salary were not the subject

matter of SWP No. 1413/2009, and were raised only in the contempt

proceedings and, as such, the petitioners were not entitled to the same.

15. This issue has already been considered while deciding the

contempt petition (CPSW No. 191 of 2018) vide order dated 17.09.2019,

Para 11.1 and 12 of the same being relevant reads as under:

"11.1. It is pertinent to mention here that as regards implementation of 6th Pay

Commission, it has come to fore from the response of respondents that

Government vide order No. 92-F of 2009 dated 24th April, 2009 has accorded

sanction to the adoption of revised pay structure in respect of employees of J&K

Public Service Undertakings as are governed by the Wage Committee Report

(Rajan Committee) from 1.1.2006 and effective from 1.7.2009, but insofar as

Public Sector Undertakings are concerned, implementation of 6th Pay Commission

was subject to approval of the Board of Directors, depending upon the resource

availability of the Corporations/Organization. Qua respondent-SRTC, the pay

structure has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation from

April 2012 prospectively, partly without payment of D.A. and since April 2012,

salary is being paid on revised pay structure and as petitioners have already retired

from the service, therefore, they are getting their pension on revised pay-scale as

per 6th Pay Commission from April 2012. The 6th Pay Commission has not been

adopted during service tenure of petitioners, as the same has been adopted from

April 2012, however, petitioners have got benefitted as pensioners. In such

circumstances, the directions contained in judgment dated 17th December, 2011

passed in SWP No. 1413/2009 titled 'All J&K State Road Transport Corporation

Pensioners Welfare Association vs. State of J&K and others' and also order dated

21st February, 2018 passed in Contempt No. 79/2012, have been carried out in

letter and spirit by respondents and resultantly there survives nothing in contempt

petition.

12. It is made clear that the Court in Contempt jurisdiction has to consider only

whether the direction or judgment of the Court passed in regular proceeding has

been complied or not. It cannot go beyond the directions contained in the order;

disobedience whereof is complained. In the present case respondent-Transport

Department has complied the judgment in letter and spirit...."

16. Since the issue raised has already been decided, as such, the

petitioners cannot re-agitate the same in these proceedings. The only ground

on which the contempt petition is to be considered was whether the second

installment of the interest has been paid to the petitioners or not but it is

apparent that in terms of the supplementary affidavit filed by the SRTC, the

same stands paid in December, 2021.

17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the judgment dated

17.12.2011, passed in SWP No. 1413/2009 stands implemented and nothing

further survives for consideration in this contempt petition, as such, the

proceedings in this contempt petition are closed.

18. Disposed of accordingly.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge