BAHADUR RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present contempt application has been preferred for the alleged breach of an order passed by this Court dated 6 th November, 2009 in W.P. (S) No. 6158 of 2007.

(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant (original petitioner) submitted that as per paragraph no. 19 of the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition, three directions were given. The first direction has already been complied with. So far as second direction is concerned that was prospective in nature and therefore, at this stage, he is not alleging the breach of the second direction. Counsel for the applicant is alleging breach of the direction given in paragraph 19(iii) of the aforesaid decision. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that 6th Pay Revision should have been given to the present applicant and the employees of opposite partyZila Parishad, which they have not given and therefore, the present contempt application has been preferred.

(3.) COUNSEL for opposite party nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Zila Parishad, Deoghar, submitted that they have also taken a decision dated 15 th March, 2011, which is at AnnexureB series to the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 5 and it has been stated that as the financial position of opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are not sound enough they are not inclined to give 6th Pay Revision at this stage, to their employees and as and when the financial position will become sound they will give 6 th Pay Revision to their employees. Thus, tentative decision has been taken on 15 th March, 2011 that at present the financial position is not good of opposite party nos. 4 and 5. Hence, 6th Pay Revision is not given to their employees.