Disposed

Ram Nath Sharma v. Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2024COPC/226/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitions over alleged non-compliance with a judgment on UGC pay scale fixation for Librarians (College Cadre). The State submitted a compliance communication; the court found the mandate duly complied with, no willful disobedience, closed the contempt proceedings, discharged notices, and reserved liberty to challenge the compliance order by writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; notices discharged; liberty reserved to file fresh proceedings challenging the compliance order.

Ram Nath Sharma Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC (T) No. 145 of 2020 and COPC No. 226 of 2019 a/w Execution Petition (T) No. 236 of 2021 Date of Decision: 10.04.2024

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ 1. COPC (T) No. 145 of 2020 Kusum Lata & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Mukesh Repaswal & Anr. …....Respondents 2. COPC No. 226 of 2019 Ram Nath Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumar & Anr. …....Respondents 3. Execution Petition (T) No. 236 of 2021 Neeru Bhardwaj ……...Petitioner Versus State of HP & Anr. …....Respondents

¶4

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for petitioner(s) in all petitions. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, alongwith Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma, & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

While placing on record communication dated 04.04.2024,

¶7

issued under the signatures of Director of Higher Education, Himachal

¶8

Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandated contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with.

¶9

Perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, reveals that Education Department has fixed the pay in the scale of Rs. 37,400-67,000+9,000(GP) of those Librarian (College Cadre), who had already been awarded the scale of Rs. 15,60039,100+6,000 by the Government after fulfilling the criteria/ norms prescribed by the UGC as per their API Score. UGC scale has been allowed only to those Librarians and Lecturer (College Cadre), who is fulfilling the conditions of qualifications and other norms prescribed by the UGC from time to time.

¶10

It has been submitted that Smt. Kusum Lata, who was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 17.11.1986 and further promoted to the post of Librarian (College Cadre) on 18.06.2007 has been given the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+6,000(GP) and Senior Scale with 7,000 (GP) & selection grade with 8,000 (GP) in compliance to the orders of the Court. As per the orders/ directions of this Court, UGC pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- was granted to the petitioner from her initial date of appointment i.e. 17.11.1986, when she was actually working as Assistant Librarian.

¶11

It has been submitted in the aforesaid communication

¶12

that Smt. Kusum Lata is not eligible for the Pay band-IV i.e. Rs. 37,000-67,000+9,000(GP). Had she opted the pay scale of Rs. 1560039100+9000 (GP) at the date of her promotion as Librarian (College Cadre) i.e. 18.06.2007, she would have been eligible for the Pay bandIV i.e. 37000-67000+9000 (GP), whereas she opted for the UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the date i.e. 17.11.1986.

¶13

Though, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing petitioner, while making this Court peruse compliance affidavit vis-a-vis mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, made a serious attempt to make this Court agree with his contention that compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that correctness of judgment passed in purported compliance, cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings, rather, same can be only laid challenge by way of substantive writ petition. Contempt proceedings are meant to ensure compliance of the order, alleged to have been violated. Since, in the case at hand, mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violation, stands duly complied with and there is nothing on record to suggest intentional and willful

¶14

disobedience, if any, on the part of the respondents, there is no justification to keep the instant contempt proceedings alive.

¶15

4. Consequently, in view of above, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondent(s) are discharged. However liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge, to the order passed in purported compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated.

¶16

April 10, 2024

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

Sunil

Ram Nath Sharma v. Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Sharma v. Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leeladhar Vs State of Hp

Desh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jai Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Kritika Sharma and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

State Bank of India Vs District Magistrate Sirmaur and Others

Shesh Ram Vs Managing Director Hp State Forest Development Corporation and Ors.