Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS contempt petition has a chequered history. It has been filed to ensure compliance of a judgment dated 29.7.1998 which has been upheld by the apex Court. Time and again, the Court has been misled by showing compliance when there was none. Full facts would be clear from the following order passed on 11.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The following order passed on 6.5.2009 would disclose the nature of disobedience. Heard Sri M.D. Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the applicants and Sri Zafar Nayer, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. The applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.7.1998. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: In view of the fact that ever since the issuance of the Government order dated 11.9.1974 the employees working in the High Court as well as the employees working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers were being treated similarly in the matter of post and pay scale etc., we are of the view that the petitioners are also entitled to the same pay scale of Rs. 3000 -4500 as carrying on the same work and possess the same qualification. The method of recruit is also similar. The non -payment of the same salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Article & of the Constitution of India as well as assigned to Article of the Constitution. It is directed to the respondents to fix the salary of the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3000 -4500 from the date of filing of this writ petition. We have refrained ourselves from granting the same pay scale to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 because it will cost a great burden on the Government. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is allowed. From a plain reading of the judgment it appears that the High Court had held that the Private Secretaries working in the office of U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3000 -4500 w.e.f. the date of the filing of the writ petition, which is admitted to be 21.5.1996. The State of U.P. challenged the judgment dated 29.7.1998 before the Apex Court by way of special leave petition in which leave was granted and after conversion into appeal it was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999. There was an interim order in the appeal. The Apex Court dismissed the civil appeal on 28.11.2007, by the following order: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. After dismissal of the Civil Appeal when the judgment of this Court was not being complied with, the applicants filed this Contempt Application under Section of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 11.5.2008. In the meantime it appears that State of U.P. filed Review Petition before the Apex Court. Through the affidavits subsequently filed it has come on record that the said review petition was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.7.2008. Upon issue of notices to opposite party No. 1, he filed a counter affidavit and also an affidavit of compliance. The applicants have filed reply to the affidavit filed by the opposite party. Along with the affidavit of compliance dated 17.11.2008 the opposite party has annexed an Office Order dated 14.11.2008 alleged to have been passed in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 29.7.1998. The order of compliance referred to above is not a simple and straight order. It is a complicated order and prima facie reading of the same makes out a clear case of violation/disobedience of the judgment and order of this Court. In this regard it would be relevant to mention certain facts. At the time when the petition was filed the pay scale which was given to the Private Secretaries working in the office of U.P. State Law Officers was Rs. 2000 -3200. The claim of the Private Secretaries Association was that they were entitled to the same pay scale as was made admissible to the Private Secretaries working in the High Court, which admittedly at that time was Rs. 3000 -4500. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition with a direction that the pay scale of the Private Secretaries working in the office of U.P. State Law Officers be fixed at Rs. 3000 -4500. It may also be relevant to mention here that the new pay scale equivalent to Rs. 2000 -3200, was Rs. 6500 -10500 whereas the new pay scale for the existing pay scale of the Rs. 3000 -4500 was Rs. 10000 -15200. Thus it was simple enough to implement the judgment, by giving the Private Secretaries working in the office of U.P. State Law Officers the pay scale of Rs. 10000 -15200 (old scale 3000 -4500) w.e.f. 21.5.1996 (i.e the date of filing of the writ petition), and to have continued as such. However from a perusal of the alleged compliance order dated 14.11.2008 it appears that taking clue from the rules framed for the Private Secretaries working in the High Court, in the year 2001 known as Allahabad High Court Private Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) published in the Official Gazette on 15.11.2001, the opposite party has provided that the Private Secretaries working on or before 14.11.2001 that is prior to the date of the publication of the said rules in the Gazette, would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 10000 -15200 (old Rs. 3000 -4500) till 14.11.2001 and thereafter would again be placed into the pay scale of Rs. 6,500 -10,500 (old Rs. 2000 -3200). Referring to the Rules referred to above it may be noticed that these rules have admittedly been published had come into force w.e.f. 15.11.2001 much after the judgment of this Court. The Private Secretaries were entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 10000 -15200 (old Rs. 3000 -4500) and the same could not have been reduced on coming into force of the Rules framed for the Private Secretaries of the High Court. The judgment inter parties i.e. State and the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers had become final. The opposite party or the State could not alter the same subsequently to their disadvantage relying upon the rules framed for the Private Secretaries of the High Court much after. Once the decision had become final after dismissal of the civil appeal and rejection of the review petition filed by the Sate any subsequent change in the pay scale of the Private Secretaries working with the office of the U.P. State Law Officers would be contrary to the judgment. It could not be done. It would clearly amount to defying the judgment of this Court. It is further to be noticed that in the Rules the High Court had placed the Private Secretaries in five grades. Grade -I being the lowest and Grade IV being the highest. An ex -cadre grade was also created. Grade -I was given pay scale of Rs. 6,500 -10,500 but same was to be filled up as per rule 5(1) of the Rules by promotion from amongst the Personal Assistants having completed minimum period of ten years continuous service. The Rules had come into force w.e.f. 15.11.2001 and would therefore be applicable to the promotions made after the said date on the post of Private Secretary. In the case in hand members of the Association of the applicants were already working as Private Secretaries and therefore they could not be treated to be at par with the Grade -I Private Secretaries of the High Court. Therefore reducing their pay scale after 15.11.2001 and giving them the lower scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 (equivalent to Rs. 2000 -3500) would be clearly in the teeth of the High Court judgment. In view of the facts stated above which are borne out from the record, the office order alleged to have been issued in compliance of the judgment of this Court cannot be accepted as compliance. It is clearly not in accordance with the judgment of this Court rather it amounts to clear defiance of the same. Sri Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants has vehemently contended that in the review petition filed by the State before the Apex Court specific plea with regard to the Rules and financial burden had been taken but the same was not accepted by the Apex Court as it had rejected the review petition. Thus the opposite party by passing the alleged order of compliance dated 14.11.2008 has not only committed wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court but also of the Apex Court which had rejected the said ground taken by the State in its review petition. Sri Nayer, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that it is not the case that the pay scale of the Private Secretaries who are working as such in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers prior to 15.11.2001, would be reduced as there is a specific provision in the compliance order that all the Private Secretaries who were drawing 10500 or more their pay would be protected. This contention cannot be accepted as this is not a case of pay protection but it is a case of implementation of the judgment of the High Court. The High Court had specifically held that Private Secretaries be given pay scale of Rs. 10000 -15200 w.e.f. 21.05.1996 with no other conditions attached to it. The opposite party cannot create any condition which may run contrary to the judgment of this Court. The compliance order passed is thus in gross violation of the judgment of this Court calling upon the Court to frame charges against the opposite party and proceed further. However before proceeding further to frame charges the Court feels that some more details be furnished by the opposite party. The opposite party may file an affidavit giving the details of the Private Secretaries appointed/promoted and working as such on or before 14.11.2001 in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers along with their date of initial appointment/promotion, the pay scale being given to them earlier, the pay scale given to them as per the judgment of this Court and their present pay scale also. Arrears may also be calculated of all such Private Secretaries and a chart to that effect may also be drawn and filed along with the affidavit of the opposite party. This affidavit may be filed within a period of two weeks from today. List this matter on 25.5.2009 in the top five cases. A copy of this order may be provided to the learned Counsel for the applicants on payment of usual charges and also to Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel free of costs within 48 hours to ensure necessary compliance. Yet the opposite parties did not take heed to the observation of the Court forcing it to pass the following order on 27.5.2009. Sri M.D. Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Advocate representing the applicants has submitted that in the affidavit of compliance filed on 25.5.2009, there are two aspects which call upon the opposite parties to remain present before this Court on the next date. First submission is that in the order dated 22.5.2009, annexed as Annexure No. CA -8 to the affidavit, the benefit of the judgment has been extended only to the working Private Secretaries as on 21.5.1996 and not to other Private Secretaries, whereas the judgment of this Court clearly mentioned that the Private Secretaries would be given the pay scale of Rs. 3000 -4500 without there being any such condition that it would be admissible only to the working Private Secretaries. Second aspect is that even with regard to the Private Secretaries, who were working as on 21.5.1996, he has referred to the statement filed as Annexure No. CA -4 relating to one Sri Jitendra Kumar, in which on the second page of the statement, after October 2001, the pay scale has been again reduced to the lower grade although in the order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure No. CA -8), which is a clarification of the earlier order issued on 14.11.2008, no such condition has been placed. Sri Zafar Nayer, Additional Advocate General may upon instructions on both the issues file affidavit of the opposite party No. 1, clearly stating as to why the benefit has been extended only to the working Private Secretaries and secondly whether the chart annexed as Annexure No. CA -4 has been prepared after the order dated 22.5.2009 or in the light of the earlier order dated 14.11.2008. List this matter on 9.7.2009. By the said date the affidavit as required may be filed. Despite sufficient time having expired yet the opposite parties still continued with arguments, but the observations of 6.5.2009 were reiterated by the following on 16.7.2009. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekher, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari for the petitioner/applicant and Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Zafar Nayyar, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. After hearing at length, I am of the considered opinion that there can be no justification to detract the view taken earlier by this Court mentioned in the order dated 6.5.2009. I am in full agreement of the aforesaid view, accordingly the same is hereby reiterated. Respondents are permitted to comply with the order passed by this Court on 29.7.1998 in Writ Petition No. 17585 of 1996 within ten days from today and file a fresh compliance report before the Court on the date fixed. In case the order is complied with by that time, the Principal Secretary (Finance) and the Principal Secretary (Law) will not appear in person before this Court on the date fixed. However, in case of non -compliance of the order, they are directed to appear in person before this Court on the date fixed. List/put up on 30th July, 2009. A copy of this order shall be provided to Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Zafar Nayyar, Additional Advocate General free of cost within 24 hours. It is apparent that till date the writ order has not been complied in its letter and spirit, though, orally it is state that payments have been made but no affidavit to that effect showing complete compliance in both letter and spirit has been filed. Let the Principal Secretary (Law) and the Principal Secretary (Finance) appear in person on 24.11.2009 to show cause why they should not be tried and punished for wilful and deliberate defiance of the writ judgement. Let a copy of this order be given to Sri Zafar Nayyar, Additional Advocate General within forty eight hours. List on 24.11.2009.
(3.) EVEN after enforcement of the rules, special allowance of Rs. 1550/ - and Rs. 1500/ - to the members of the applicant Association was not paid or any Government Order issued in respect thereof despite the fact that the Government Advocate through his letter dated 16.6.2009 had requested the Principal Secretary (Law) to issue the said Government Order. As on date, though the special allowance is being paid, it has no statutory backing as even a Government Order to this effect has not been issued and the apprehension of the applicants appears to be justified, keeping in view the background of this case, that the allowance now paid may be adjusted or recovered later on as it has no legal backing. Comprehension fails the Court as to why the Government Order has not been issued. The Court would also consider on the subsequent date as to whether the conduct of the respondent officials amounts to contempt.;