This oral order dismissed a contempt petition regarding a grievance over pay fitment. The court found no case of contempt as the adjustment of pay scales and allowances protected the total emolument levels.
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.
Patna High Court MJC No.1474 of 2012 (5) dt.01-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1474 of 2012 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Sanjiv Sharan Chairman Madhya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sharad Kr. Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Amit Kr. Anand, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 5. 01-08-2012 Heard the parties.
As per earlier order second show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party to bring on record Annexure-A series showing that they have re-considered the fitment made in the case of the petitioner. The re-determination of fitment of pay scale shows that on account of new pay scale of sponsor bank for the concerned post, the basic pay as on 22.2.1991 is Rs. 1000/- in place of basic pay, as per earlier existing R.R.B. pay scale, of Rs. 1260/-. The D.A. component was also at Rs. 642.60 but on the basis of new basic pay of Rs. 1000/- it comes only to Rs. 623.10. Against house rent allowance of Rs. 50/- as per R.R.B. pay scale, the new house rent allowance is of Rs. 80/-. In order to protect the total emolument from falling below the earlier level the personal allowance of Rs. 249.50 has been made admissible so that on 22.2.1991 the petitioner does get lesser emolument that what he was getting as per then
Patna High Court MJC No.1474 of 2012 (5) dt.01-08-2012
existing R.R.B. pay scale.
The grievance of the petitioner is that although against earlier scale of Rs. 1200-1800 the pay scale of the sponsor Bank is from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 2835/- but the basic pay in course of fitment should not have been less than Rs. 1260/-. Such a claim is refuted by learned counsel for the Bank by referring to the illustration for working out the personal allowance as given in paragraph 4 (V) of letter dated 22.2.1991 from the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi to all the Chairman and Managing Director of all sponsor Bank’s and other concerned officers. The example or illustration clearly shows that as against basic pay on Rs. 1760, it was permissible to provide basic pay of even Rs. 1295. The D.A. component cannot be altered in favour of one individual employee because it is to be constant for all the employees of any particular institution. Further in the example, the house rent allowance was also reduced from Rs. 220 to Rs. 130 but the total emolument was protected by providing personal allowance.
After hearing the parties, we do not find that any case of contempt is made out on account of disobedience of directions of this Court.
The contempt petition is, therefore, finally disposed of.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
(Vikash Jain, J)
Fahad./-
Rajesh Kumar & Ors
Sanjiv Sharan
Shiva Kirti Singh
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
