Dr. Nitin Gupta and Another vs Shri Rajeev Swaroop and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—All the above contempt petitions come up alleging contempt of the order dated 14.12.2012, passed by this Court. On notice, replies to the contempt petitions have been filed.

Heard. Considered.

Vide order dated 14.12.2012, this Court had directed for consideration of the petitioners'' representations on three issues: (i) payment of monthly gross salary to those appointed on contract basis as Asstt. Professors equivalent to the monthly gross salary to regularly appointed Asstt. Professors in the Govt. Colleges; (ii) grant of leave benefits as per RSR and (iii) payment of salary during the summer vacation.

It has been submitted that the order of this Court passed on 14.12.2012 has not been complied with.

Mr. D.V. Tholia, learned AAG appearing for the respondents-contemnors, submitted that the representations submitted by the petitioners on various dates between 26.12.2012 to 14.01.2013 pursuant the order dated 14.12.2012 have been considered by the respondent-contemnors and vide order dated 08.08.2013, the said representations have been partly allowed to the extent of payment of salary during summer vacation. He submitted that salary/arrears of salary pertaining to summer vacation will be paid, if not paid within a period of four weeks from today. Let an affidavit of the concerned Secretary on this aspect be filed within two weeks. He however submitted that by a detailed reasoning under the decision dated 08.08.2013, the case set up by the petitioners for grant of monthly gross salary at par with regularly appointed Asstt. Professors in the Govt. Colleges has been rejected with reference to the Regulation 13.1 of UGC Regulation, 2010 for the reason that unlike regularly appointed Asstt. Professors those appointed on contract basis were neither put through a screening test, written examination or interview nor were considered at the State level. Their appointment was only at the local level by the concerned Principals of the Govt. Colleges. It has been submitted that as far as payment of leave benefits under RSR Rules is concerned, on consideration of the matter, it was found that RSR Rules did not apply to the petitioners in view of their conditions reflected in their letters of appointment.

In my considered opinion, in view of the decision dated 08.08.2013 on the representations made by the petitioners, no case of willful default or disobedience or of deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2012 is made out. If the petitioners are aggrieved of the alleged incorrectness or erroneous approach of the respondents-contemnors in deciding their representations as per law, it constitutes a fresh cause of action for which the petitioners will be free to approach the competent Court, if so advised.

Consequently, the contempt petition are dismissed. Contempt notices stand discharged.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.