Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) THIS is a rale calling upon Shri Sohan Singh Bassi, Irrigation and Power Minister, Punjab, Shri Paramjit Singh, Commissioner cam -Secretary to Government, Punjab, P.W.D. B&R Branch, punjab, and Shri Kewal Krishan, Chief Engineer, Punjab, P.W.D., B&R, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. The rule has been issued on the application of Shri Nirbhai Singh Dhillon, Supervisor. Outside State Property, Panjab, P.W.D., B&R, Patiala, which contains the following allegations. The services of the Petitioner who was working as Supervisor, Outside State Property in Pepsu were terminated by order dated 12th November, 1955. This order led to a series of representations by the Petitioner praying that the order be set aside as it was illegal. Ultimately, by order dated 19th March, 1968 the Punjab Government which was the successor Government after the merger of the Pepsu with Punjab reinstated the Petitioner in service. The copy of this order is Annexure A. Having succeeded in getting the order of his removal from service set aside the Petitioner started making representations asking for the payment of arrears of pay and allowance due from 1st October, 1953 and also for promotion in the Department which he would have earned had his services not been terminated. Repeated requests having failed to persuade the concerned authorities to pay him arrears of salary and to promote him to his proper place in the cadre the Petitioner filed a civil writ in this Court being Civil Writ No. 3261 of 1968. In this petition the Petitioner claimed a mandamus directing the respondents to release his entire arrears of salary and to allow all other rights, privileges and benefits to which he was entitled. - This writ petition came up before B.R. Tuli, J., who by order dated 20th February, 1969 accepted the writ petition with the direction that the Petitioner should file his affidavit of income as required under the rules within a fortnight and the State Government should then decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of the order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that even though this Court had directed the respondents to decide the case within four months but for over a year and a half the respondents had not cared to decide the question of his arrears of pay and other rights and privileges and the respondents thereby committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying its orders in Civil Writ No. 3261 of 1968 Allegations of mala fides were also made against respondent No. 1 on the ground that the Petitioner had fought an election against this respondent in 1967. From this it was sought to be inferred that respondent No. 1 had malice against the Petitioner and because of this malice he had ignored the directions of this Court in Civil Writ No. 3261 of 1968 It is, how. ever, admitted in the petition that by order dated 7th April, 1970 the Petitioner had been ordered to be paid salary for a period of three years preceding 7th October, 1969. As the question of tie Petitioner's promotion and other privileges to which he was entitled had not been decided by the respondents the present petition was filed with the request to commit the respondents for contempt for their disregard of the orders of this Court.
(2.) THE respondents appeared and have filed their affidavits. Respondent No. 1, Shri Sohan Singh Bassi, in his affidavit dated 24th October 1970 while admitting that the Petitioner's service had been terminated by the Pepsu Government and he had been subsequently reinstated by the Punjab Government by order dated 19th March 1968 and while also admitting that the Petitioner had made representations after the passing of the order of his reinstatement added that at that time he was holding the office of the Minister and that the matter had been dealt with by the Advisor to the Governor who had made the following proposal: I have consulted L R. on both cases and his views are embodied in my proposals. 2. We have to carry out the orders of reinstatement of Shri Dhillon but we should only pay him for the period during which he did not work after he filed a suit. This will mean that he will only get 3 years pay due to limitation. Re -withdrawal of case against Raghuram, the withdrawal is final and nothing can be done (Linked case below). This respondent also denied the allegations of mala fides and pleaded that he bad in fact been supporting the case of the Petitioner for the payment of full salary to him. Reference was made by this respondent to the following rote recorded by him: I find that the main reason for not allowing full pay and allowances beyond the period of three years is the advice given by L R, at page 54 ante However, in another case of Shri S.P. Leokha (placed below as linked file No. II) the L.R. has held that "though the claim was time -barred yet it is not the policy of the Government to brush aside the just claims of its employees on technical grounds." I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in the case of Shri Dhillon. Furthermore I have not been able to follow as to what type of Show Cause Notice is to be served on Mr. Dhillon. Issuing of the Show Cause Notice itself would indicate that his representation. was accepted in toto and there does not seem to be any reason to depave him of the benefit which has already accrued to him as a result of the acceptance of his reprsentation. In view of the above, I feel that he should be paid areas of full pay for the entire period. Since this is an important matter and a case of its own type which will be a precedent in future C.M. may also kindly see after L.R. has seen his advice at page II of L.F. II. As ultimately the Law Department did not agree the orders had to be passed in accordance with the advice of the Law Department. In view of this, it was stated by respondent No. 1 that there was no truth in the allegation that he bore any ill -will or grudge against the Petitioner. With regard to the other demands of the Petitioner respondent No. 1 stated that the question of fixation of the Petitioner's pay had been referred to the Finance Department and the advice received from that Department had been seat to the office of the Chief Engineer. It also emerges from the statement of respondent No. 1 that orders for the payment of three years' arrears had already been passed by the Government and that the Chief Engineer had been directed to examine the claim of the Petitioner for promotion vis -a -vis the claims of other Supervisors in the Department and that the Chief Engineer has taken a decision on this question also In the end it was stated by respondent No. 1 that the case had been delayed because the matter had to be inferred to the Law Department. 3. Shri Paramjit Singh, Commissioner for Public Works and Secretary to Government, Punjab, P.W.D.B. and R. while giving a detailed account of the movement of the file relating to the case of the Petitioner denied that the orders of this Court had been wilfully disobeyed or that any wilful delay had occurred in the disposal of the Petitioner's case. In this respect it was stated as under "In view of the position stated in the foregoing paras it will be seen that every effort has been made by the answering respondent to implement the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as early as possible and no wilful delay has occurred by respondent No. 2 in deciding the case of the Petitioner. The answering respondent took all the action that was required of him and lay within his powers and issued final orders of Govt. regarding payment of arrear dues and asked for the proposal of Chief Engineer, P.W.D. & R regarding claim for promotion of the Petitioner. The respondent has the highest respect for the Hon'ble Court and he cannot even dream of disobeying the orders of this Court. It is prayed that the petition may be dismissed." Along with the reply respondent No. 2 also filed copies of the notes of the Law Department and copies of some of the notes recorded by him while dealing with the case of the Petitioner.
(3.) FROM the reply filed by respondent No. 3 it emerges that as the order of reinstatement of the Petitioner was not clear with regard to the arrears of pay and other benefits to be allowed to him. Reference was made by him to Government on 6th March, 1969. On this reference ultimately Government conveyed the decision by memo dated 7th April, 1970 directing the Chief Engineer that the Petitioner should be paid arrears for a period of three years preceding 7th October, 1969 as the Petitioners claim for payment of arrears of pay and allowances beyond that period was found to be time barred. It is further stated by respondent No. 3 that after the receipt of orders from the Government steps had been taken for making payment to the Petitioner of the arrears of pay in accordance with the orders of the Governor and that the case of fixation of pay of the Petitioner had also been referred to the Accountant General Punjab. After the reply from the Accountant Genera), Punjab, had been received the case was sent to Government for verification and fixation of the Petitioners pay in the revised scale by the Finance Department as desired by the Accountant - General Punjab. It also emerges from the affidavit of respondent No. 3 that the question of the Petitioner's seniority had also been decided. With regard to the delay in the disposal of the case, the position taken by this respondent is that the case was very old one and required creation of a supernumerary post in consultation with the Administrative Department, Finance Department and the Accountant -General, Punjab. If is stated that whole procedure was very circuitous and the period of four months could not be adhered to It was also stated that as now the orders of the High Court had been complied with and most of the claims raised by the Petitioner had been settled no action under the Contempt of Courts be taken.;