AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 525 words@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J
While placing on record communication dated 04.04.2024, issued under the signatures of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandated contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with.
Perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, reveals that Education Department has fixed the pay in the scale of Rs. 37,40067,000+9,000(GP) of those Librarian (College Cadre), who had already been awarded the scale of Rs. 15,600 39,100+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.
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. 15,60039,100+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. 2,2004,000/ was granted to the petitioner from her initial date of appointment i.e. 17.11.1986, when she was actually working as Assistant Librarian.
It has been submitted in the aforesaid communication that Smt. Kusum Lata is not eligible for the Pay bandIV i.e. Rs. 37,00067,000+9,000(GP). Had she opted the pay scale of Rs. 15600 39100+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 band IV i.e. 3700067000+9000 (GP), whereas she opted for the UGC pay scale of Rs. 22004000 from the date i.e. 17.11.1986.
Though, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing petitioner, while making this Court peruse compliance affidavit visavis 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 disobedience, if any, on the part of the respondents, there is no justification to keep the instant contempt proceedings alive.
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.