- (1.) THE present contempt petition has been preferred against the alleged breach of an order passed by this Court dated 12 th May, 2004 in W.P.(S) No. 2543 of 2004.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties have deliberately violated the order passed by this Court as stated hereinabove and the petitioner has not been given I.A. and B.A. Trained Scale like that of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha. Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties have already taken a decision dated 31st January, 2011, which is annexed at AnnexureS/1 to the supplementary show cause filed by the opposite parties and it is stated in detail that the petitioner is not entitled to I.A. and B.A. Trained Scale. It is submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties that the case of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha is altogether another case because there was an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5442 of 2004 dated 16th April, 2010 and the recovery order passed by the opposite parties for wrongly given higher pay scale was quashed and set aside. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the State that it is one thing not to recover the amount if it is wrongly paid and it is altogether another thing to give a wrong pay scale. Thus, if by any mistake, if the Government has given higher pay scale there are several decisions that as there was no misrepresentation or the fraud played by a employee wrongly given amount by way of salary cannot be recovered, but, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petitioner is not entitled to I.A. and B.A. Trained Scale as per the order passed by the opposite parties. The case of the present petitioner is not comparable with that of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha and hence, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) the following direction was given by this Court while finally disposing of the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner, being W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2004 vide order dated 12th May, 2004. "In the light of the aforesaid letter the D.S.E. Ranchi is supposed to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for grant of I.A. and B.A. trained scale like that of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha. The petitioner is directed to file a representation before the D.S.E., Ranchi along with a copy of this order. If such representation is filed, the D.S.E. Ranchi shall take decision by passing reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of." (ii) the opposite parties have already passed a detailed reasoned order dated 31st January, 2011 which is at AnnexureS/1 to the supplementary show cause filed by the opposite parties. Looking to this order there is no willful disobedience of the direction given by this Court as stated hereinabove in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner is comparing his case with that of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha, but, looking to the order passed by the opposite parties, it appears that there was some earlier order in another writ petition in the case of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha in W.P.(S) No. 5442 of 2004 dated 16th April, 2010 and by virtue of this order, the higher pay scale was not given to Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha, but, the order of recovery passed by the opposite parties was quashed and set aside. It ought to be kept in mind that if the opposite parties have paid slightly higher amount to the employee without there being any misrepresentation or fraud such an amount cannot be recovered, but, as the order of recovery is quashed in a case of Smt. Shanti Kumari Sinha that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to I.A. and B.A. Trained Scale.
(3.) IN view of these facts and as the impugned order has already been passed by the opposite parties, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Hence, this contempt petition is hereby, dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order in accordance with law before appropriate Forum.;