Amitabha Ghosh and Anr. Vs. Manorath Pandey & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 301-302/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12621-12622/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12621-12622/2000)
Petitioner: Amitabha Ghosh and Anr.
Respondent: Manorath Pandey & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 301-302/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12621-12622/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12621-12622/2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2(c) – Contempt proceedings – Service matter – High Court directing the management to continue to pay basic pay – Contempt proceedings initiated on grounds that management was not paying revised pay as per 5th Pay Commission – Order under challenge based on an order of Delhi High Court in some pending cases against IIT, Delhi – High Court directing to pay the salary in scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200. Held that such orders could not be passed in contempt proceedings. Orders set aside. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur is in appeal against the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 28.6.2000 passed in a contempt proceeding. The services of the two respondents stood terminated on the ground that they were in a sponsored scheme. Assailing the said order of termination they filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court set aside the termination order by order dated 19.7.1995. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred to the Division Bench by the management of the IIT, Kharagpur. The Division Bench passed a conditional order of stay dt. 11.9.1995 directing that some equivalent employment be given to the respondents and they be allowed to occupy the same quarters which they were occupying. Subsequently on the application of the Management the order stood modified by order dated 1.12.1995 and as per the said order the Management was duty bound to continue to pay respondents the basic pay with all other service benefits. The respondents filed application for contempt before the Division Bench alleging, inter alia, that the order of the High Court has been violated as they were not being paid the basic pay as per the subsequent revision made under the 5th Pay Commission. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order takes into consideration some order passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in some pending case of the said High Court and then came to the conclusion that the respondents should be paid in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- subject to an undertaking being given by the respondents. It is this direction of the Division Bench which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the two respondents in person we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Calcutta committed serious error in directing the appellant to pay the respondents in the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-, relying upon some order of the Delhi High Court in case of an employee of the IIT, Delhi. At any rate in the contempt proceeding such an order could not have been passed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, we set aside that direction of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court directing the appellant to pay the respondents in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- until the appeal is finally disposed of. The Calcutta High Court is requested to dispose of the pending appeal within 6 months from today. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur is in appeal against the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 28.6.2000 passed in a contempt proceeding. The services of the two respondents stood terminated on the ground that they were in a sponsored scheme. Assailing the said order of termination they filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court set aside the termination order by order dated 19.7.1995. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred to the Division Bench by the management of the IIT, Kharagpur. The Division Bench passed a conditional order of stay dt. 11.9.1995 directing that some equivalent employment be given to the respondents and they be allowed to occupy the same quarters which they were occupying. Subsequently on the application of the Management the order stood modified by order dated 1.12.1995 and as per the said order the Management was duty bound to continue to pay respondents the basic pay with all other service benefits. The respondents filed application for contempt before the Division Bench alleging, inter alia, that the order of the High Court has been violated as they were not being paid the basic pay as per the subsequent revision made under the 5th Pay Commission. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order takes into consideration some order passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in some pending case of the said High Court and then came to the conclusion that the respondents should be paid in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- subject to an undertaking being given by the respondents. It is this direction of the Division Bench which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the two respondents in person we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Calcutta committed serious error in directing the appellant to pay the respondents in the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-, relying upon some order of the Delhi High Court in case of an employee of the IIT, Delhi. At any rate in the contempt proceeding such an order could not have been passed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, we set aside that direction of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court directing the appellant to pay the respondents in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- until the appeal is finally disposed of. The Calcutta High Court is requested to dispose of the pending appeal within 6 months from today. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
