SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Vs. KAMAL PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and have anxiously considered the pleadings and records of this case. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma has filed this contempt petition, alleging disobedience of the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 435-2000, filed by him, wherein the following direction was given:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the pleadings made in this contempt petition and has submitted that the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid order, in the spirit and the direction so given. Orders dated 18.9.2001 (Annex. C.P./4) and 25.9.2001 (Annex. C.P. 5) have been passed implementing the judgment of this Tribunal as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. He has strenuously submitted that a conjoint reading of both the judgments i.e. of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court would make it evident that the applicant was entitled for promotion to IPS with all consequential benefits and the period from the date of superannuation from State Police Service to the date of appointment to IPS by promotion was to be treated as duty for all purposes other than the purposes of retiral benefits for which it has been directed that the same shall be treated as dies-non. He has submitted that the intention of the Hon'ble High Court is very clear that the applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as pay, revision of pension, gratuity etc., but the respondents have categorically denied any payment of salary and allowances for the period which has been treated as dies-non. He has also submitted that it is clear from a bare reading of the operative portion of the order this Bench of the Tribunal that the period from the date of superannuation from the State Police Service to the appointment as I.P.S. would be treated as 'Dies-non' for the purpose of retiral benefits. Therefore the petitioner would have been allowed pay and allowances for the said period. He has also submitted that he has been appointed to I.P.S. by promotion with effect from 31.3.94. But instead of making actual payment only proforma fixation has been done and he has been given notional promotion. In support of his contention he relied on a judgment of one of the coordinating Benches in Ramesh Chander v. R.S. Gahlewat, 1992(1) SLJ (CAT) 484, and contended that consequential benefits includes arrears of pay but the respondents have not paid him the due arrears despite there was an order that he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits.

(3.) MR. Sharma has further contended that there was no specific direction to make payment of any arrears in as much as no amount was specified in the order and in such circumstances it cannot be said contempt has been committed by the respondents. He has endeavoured to satisfy us that the judgment of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court has been fully complied with and there was no specific direction to make payment of any salary and allowance in respect of the period which is treated as dies non. Had the intention of the learned Tribunal been to make payment of salary and allowances for the said period some amount would have been spelt out in clear terms. As regards the pay fixation of the applicant from 31.3.94, the applicant's pay has been notionally fixed as per the rules in force. In this respect also there was no direction that actual monetary benefits are required to be given. Therefore no contempt whatsoever has been committed by the respondents 2 and 3. He has cited numerous decisions before us in support of his contention.