Nishar Ahmad vs Shri Neeraj Mandloi
2021 Latest Caselaw 155 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 155 MP
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nishar Ahmad vs Shri Neeraj Mandloi on 24 February, 2021

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
               BENCH AT GWALIOR
                CONC.No.1349/2020
         ( Nishar Ahmad Vs. Neeraj Mandloi and others )
                                (1)

Gwalior, dated : 24.02.2021

     Shri Devesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

     Shri Nitin Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents No.3.and 4

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. This Contempt Petition has been filed under Sections 10 & 12

of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the

Constitution of India alleging non-compliance of the order

dt.13.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.5854/2017.

3. The following order was passed while disposing of

W.P.No.5854/2017 :-

"12. The respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of classified employee to the petitioner from the date of his classification in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

13. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

14. It is seen that repeatedly such orders are being passed by the authorities despite of the fact that the classification orders have attained finality and not being cancelled at any point of time. Despite of the same, the authorities are applying policy dated 07.10.2016 to the cases of classified employees. It appears that there is no application of mind by authorities and in a cyclostate manner the orders have been passed. The entire controversy with regard to 8 W.P. No.5854/2017 classified employees have been put to rest by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).

15. In such circumstances, the authorities are directed to apply their mind prior to passing orders in cases of classified employees.

16. Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order to Principal Secretary, Public Work Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CONC.No.1349/2020 ( Nishar Ahmad Vs. Neeraj Mandloi and others )

(M.P.) who is expected to issue instructions to the subordinate authorities."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this

Court in the Writ Petition in very specific term had directed to

extend the benefit of minimum of the pay scale from the date of his

classification in accordance with the Apex Court judgment Ram

Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwani Rai as reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436

but the benefit has been extended w.e.f. 16.02.2005, whereas the

petitioner is entitled for the benefit from 28.03.1989, on which date

he has been classified, which is evident from the order dt.16.02.2005

(Annexure P/2 annexed with the writ petition). Said action of the

respondents in not complying the order of this Court and not

granting the benefit of classification from the date of classification

and not making payment of arrears of salary amounts to deliberate

and willful disobedience of the lawful order and as such, the

respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts

Act.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

and 4 opposed the prayer and submitted that on bare reading of the

order passed in W.P.No.58545/2017, in para No.11, this Court had

quashed the order dt.16.02.2005, therefore, in such circumstances,

the petitioner could not have been extended the benefit of

classification w.e.f. 28.03.1989, as the order of classification itself

stood quashed. He further submitted that though the order of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CONC.No.1349/2020 ( Nishar Ahmad Vs. Neeraj Mandloi and others )

classification stood quashed, but taking into consideration the case of

Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), the benefit has been extended to the

petitioner w.e.f. 16.02.2005.

6. On perusal of the order dt.13.01.2020, of which non-

compliance has been alleged, it appears that though the benefit was

to be extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.03.1989 but because of

setting aside of the order dt.16.02.2005, as mentioned in para 11 of

the order, the benefit was not extended by the respondents.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no case of willful disobedience

appears to be made out against the respondents. Accordingly, this

Contempt Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule nisi

issued against the respondents stands discharged.