Dr. Mahesh Babu Sharma vs Shri Prabhanshu Kamal and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this contempt petition it was contended that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 17-12-2009 and benefit of senior scale and selection grade are not extended in favour of petitioner. Shri Bhargava submits that the compliance report has been filed along the document dated 27-09-2013 Annexure R/1. As per Annexure R/1, petitioner has been given senior scale w.e.f. 21-12-1992 and selection grade w.e.f. 27-07-1998.

Shri Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is silent about consequential benefit. He submits that petitioner is entitled to get arrears of pay of senior scale and selection grade from its due date. In addition, by placing reliance on Annexure-A filed along with I.A. No. 963/13, it is contended that this pay slip of Seema Raizada shows that she got other benefits; a particular pay scale in a particular band which has not been given in the case of petitioner. Thus, placed heavy reliance on the direction "C" of writ Court. It is contended that the consequential benefit has not been granted to the petitioner.

Shri Bhargava on a specific question from the Bench fairly submits that petitioner shall be entitled to get arrears of pay of senior scale w.e.f. 21-12-1992 and selection grade w.e.f. 27-07-1998. In other words, it is contended by Shri Bhargava that arrears of salary for senior scale and selection grade will be paid from due date to the petitioner within four weeks.

Contention of Shri Sharma is that petitioner must get all the consequential benefits as per pay slip of Seema Raizada, I am unable to agree with this contention of Shri Sharma. If direction passed by this Court in writ petition are examined conjointly then it will be crystal clear that direction "C" only means that consequential benefits arising out of granting of senior scale and selection grade be paid to the petitioner. This Court did not travel beyond that in the said direction issued by this Court. If petitioner has some other grievance and wants to claim parity in respect of other remaining benefits, remedy is elsewhere. In contempt jurisdiction something cannot be enforced which has not been decided in specific term. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court as undertaken by Shri Bharagava, respondents are bound to pay arrears of senior scale and selection grade to the petitioner within four weeks. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of reserving the liberty to petitioner to avail the remedy as available in law if he is still aggrieved by any portion of the compliance report or if he is claiming parity with Seema Raizada in any other matter. If respondents do not comply with the aforesaid undertaking of payment of arrears within four weeks, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to revive this contempt petition.

With the aforesaid, Contempt petition is disposed of.