In this contempt application challenging non-compliance with directions to extend Sixth Pay Commission benefits, the court dismissed the application. It held that as the petitioner had not specifically prayed for a stepping-up of salary to match his juniors, this issue could not be examined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/MCA/2678/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2678 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5286 of 2014
========================================================== ATULBHAI KRUSHNAVADAN MEHTA
Versus DR. RAJIVKUMAR GUPTA
========================================================== Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP, NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 06/07/2018
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1.This Misc. Civil Application is filed under
the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the
respondents have violated the directions issued
in the order dated 15.03.2017 passed in Special
Civil Application No.5286 of 2014.
2.In the aforesaid Special Civil Application,
the applicant herein had sought directions
against the respondents to extend benefits of the
recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission.
The said Special Civil Application was disposed
of with the directions, as contained in
Page 1 of 3
C/MCA/2678/2017 ORDER
paragraph-3 of the order, which reads as under;
“3.In view of the above, it is directed
that the respondent shall do the needful to
duly stamp and verify the duplicate service
book of the petitioner, which has already
been prepared by the respondent, at the
earliest and to extend the benefit of 6th Pay
Commission with all consequential benefits,
including the arrears, as expeditiously as
possible and not later than ten weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
3.We have heard learned counsel for the
applicant and also learned AGP for the
respondents. Further, we have perused the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
respondents. In the affidavit in reply filed by
respondent no.2, while denying the various
allegations made by the applicant, it is stated
that an amount of Rs.8,42,934/- has been paid to
the applicant towards the benefits of Sixth Pay
Commission recommendations and arrears, in
compliance of the directions issued in the order
dated 15.03.2017.
4.Although, it is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant was also
entitled to stepping-up of salary since his
juniors were getting more pay than him but, the
same was not the subject matter of the petition.
In absence of any prayer to that effect, the said
Page 2 of 3
C/MCA/2678/2017 ORDER
issue cannot be gone into in this application
filed under the Contempt of Courts Act.
5.For the aforesaid reasons, this application
is dismissed. However, if the applicant is
entitled for any other benefit/s, then this will
not preclude him from claiming such benefit/s
under the law.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the erosion of the salary order in the absence of a specific prayer for stepping-up to be examined in a contempt of court application under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Atulbhai Krushnadvan Mehta
Dr. Rajivkumar Gupta
R. Subhash Reddy
Vipul M. Pancholi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court