M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) BALESHWAR Singh, petitioner herein, has filed this application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of the order dated 9.4. 2003 passed in CWJC No. 771/1998R.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been given the pay -scale of Anti -Malaria Supervisor only with effect from 1.1.1986 whereas he is entitled to the same with effect from 1.10,1980 as per the recommendation of the Pay -Revision Committee. He has filed writ petition being CWJC No. 771/1998R and the same was disposed of on 9.4.2003. Thereupon appeal was filed in L.P.A No. 386/2003, which was dismissed on 27.2.2006. According to the respondents, earlier the petitioner challenged the order of the Department dated 30.12.1987 regarding grant of pay -scale in CWJC No. 946/1988R. The same was heard by the Division Bench and dismissed on 20.7.1988. That order had attained finality. Thereafter, 4 years later the petitioner filed another writ petition, on the basis of the recommendation letter as the cause of action, being CWJC No. 3518/1993R, suppressing the dismissal order passed by the Division Bench in CWJC No. 946/1988R. Ultimately the writ petition. CWJC No: 3518/1993, was disposed of on 17.2.1994, directing the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner Again the petitioner filed another writ petition, CWJC No. 3328/1995R, which was disposed of on 16.12.1996. In that order, the respondent No. 2, Deputy Secretary was directed to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly a fresh decision was taken of 4.8.1997 in compliance of the said order. Complaining that the order passed in CWJC No. 3328/1995R has not been complied with, the petitioner filed contempt application being MJC No. 403/1997 and the same was dropped by this Court. The order passed on 9.4.2003 in CWJC No. 771/1998R is merely a direction to comply with the order passed on 16.12.1996 in CWJC N J. 3328/1995R. As indicated above the said order has been complied with, on account of which no action was taker against the respondents earlier in MJC No. 403/1997. Further it has been clarified in the order passed in LPA No. 325/2003. Since the above direction given in CWJC No. 3328/1995R was complied with long back, the present contempt application is not maintainable.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents.;