Manoj Kumar S/O Late Shri Ramniwas ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3680 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:18054-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1690/2019

1.       Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ahir, Aged About
         39 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Musepur, Police
         Station    Jetusana,         District      Rewari,         Haryana     Retired
         Constable, Rajasthan Police Jaipur Rajasthan
2.       Ravindra S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ahir, Aged About 36
         Years, Resident Of Village And Post Musepur, Police
         Station    Jetusana,         District      Rewari,         Haryana     Retired
         Constable, Rajasthan Police Jaipur Rajasthan
3.       Harish Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Ahir, Aged About
         27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Musepur, Police
         Station    Jetusana,         District      Rewari,         Haryana     Retired
         Constable, Rajasthan Police Jaipur Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home
         Department,        Government           Of     Rajasthan,          Government
         Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur
2.       Rajiv     Swaroop,        I.a.s.,      Additional          Chief    Secretary,
         Department Of Home Affairs And Justice, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur
3.       Bhupendra Yadav, Director General Of Police, Police
         Headquarters, Jaipur
4.       Ajay Shrivastava, Police Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur
5.       Manoj Choudhary, Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Police
         Headquarters, Jaipur
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with Mr. Udit Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

17/08/2023

[2023:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (2 of 4) [CCP-1690/2019]

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful

disobedience of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court

on 11.05.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the spirit

of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order

passed by the Division Bench required the respondents to not only

provide higher pay scales at regular period as provided under the

schemes applicable to a government servant, it also required the

respondents to recompute the leave account of the deceased

employee and workout afresh leave encashment entitlement of the

deceased employee.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that

the deceased employee was also entitled to interest on the

delayed payment as provided under Rule 89 of the Pension Rules.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that

payments have been made to the petitioners according to the best

understanding of the judgment by the respondents towards

compliance of the order passed by the Court. He would submit

that there was no specific directions for payment of any

consequential benefits in the form of senior or selection grade.

Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of wilful disobedience of

any specific direction. As far as leave account is concerned, he

would submit that as per the records available with the

respondents, whatever was found as admissible earned leave,

encashment was provided and accordingly pension has been

worked out and benefits of leave encashment as also gratuity has

been paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.

[2023:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (3 of 4) [CCP-1690/2019]

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that

the Division Bench order of this Court clearly provided for

continuity of service of the deceased employee as the order of

dismissal from service was substituted with the punishment of

stoppage of four annual grade increment with cumulative effect. It

is, however, not known as to how the respondents have computed

the leave account of the deceased employee. Maintaining

continuity in service would definitely require the respondents to

compute leave earned per year as per Service Rules had the

deceased employee continued in service. Therefore, the

respondents are required to workout afresh leave account of the

deceased employee treating him to be continuous in service and

after reframing leave account, leave encashment benefits may be

recalculated and if any amount more than what has already been

paid towards leave encashment, is found due and payable under

the rules, the same shall be paid to the applicants.

In the absence of there being any specific direction for other

consequential benefits in the form of grant of selection grade or

senior scale grade etc., it cannot be said that any contempt has

been committed. So also in the absence of there being any

direction in the payment of interest, the non payment of interest

cannot be said to be an act of wilful disobedience.

In view of the above observations and conclusion, we are not

inclined to proceed further in the matter, therefore, the contempt

petition is disposed of. The respondents should workout the leave

encashment benefits within three months in the light of the

observations as stated above. Normally in the contempt petition

such observations are not made but taking into consideration that

[2023:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (4 of 4) [CCP-1690/2019]

the employee died during the pendency of the case and his legal

representatives have to receive benefits, to put quietus to the

dispute, to avoid confusion with regard to the compliance part of

the order passed by this Court earlier, clarifying observations with

regard to leave encashment benefits have been made.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

27-Mohit Kumar

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)