Veenu Gupta & Ors vs Anand Purohit & Ors

SLP (C) NO.664 OF 2018

Leave granted.

While disposing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8988 of 2014 and other connected matters, a Single Judge of the High Court passed following directions:

"15. Resultantly, the above noted writ petitions are allowed and a direction is given to the respondents to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by clause 15 by conducting annual appraisal reports of the petitioners and if the work of the petitioners is found satisfactory, may consider to afford them 10% increment from the date it became due. However, since the State by an order dated 10.12.2010 took a decision to enhance the remuneration of a certain set of its contractual employee working under the same scheme as the petitioners, it is held the same enhancement is due to them. The action of ignoring their claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since all set of employees have to be treated by the same yardstick. The discrimination has not been explained nor does it stand the test of reasonableness.

Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for increments as per Clause 15 of the agreements and to revise the remuneration of the petitioners has been done vide order dated 10.12.2012 so as to bring them in parity with other contractual employees. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. After the remuneration is re-fixed and increments, if any, are due, the arrears be released within a period of three months thereafter, failing which the amounts payable will carry an interest of 6% from the date due till date of disbursement."

The decision was challenged by the State by filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No.818 of 2016. Said appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 02.03.2017 as under:

"Heard learned Addl. Advocate General and perused the judgment impugned.

The learned Single Judge issued directions in the light of Clause 15 of the agreement signed by both the parties, therefore, it is obvious that the parties are abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in Agreement (Annex.2) annexed to the writ petition.

In our opinion, when agreement was arrived at between the parties, then, obviously appellants/respondents are under obligation to consider the case of the writ-petitioners for increment and enhancement of remuneration as per Clause 15 of the agreement. Therefore, no interference is called for in these appeals.

Dismissed accordingly."

The State being aggrieved approached this Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.24520 of 2017, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 14.09.2017 as under:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner has only been asked to consider the matter in terms of clause 15 of the Agreement in question.

We make it clear that the direction may not be read as requiring the petitioner to grant the increment as claimed. However, consideration by the petitioner must be fair and transparent.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

Thereafter, the original writ petitioners approached the

High Court by filing S.B. Writ Contempt No.124 of 2017.

In the contempt petition, the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners were:

a) There were two directions issued by the Single Judge.

b) In terms of the first direction, the respondents were directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into and more particularly Clause 15 of the Agreement and consider whether 10% increment could be given to the concerned Cadres.

c) Under the second direction, there was a positive direction that as the State had already decided by order dated 10.12.2012 to enhance the remuneration of certain sets of its contractual employees, the writ petitioners were also entitled to the same enhancement."

The High Court by its order dated 23.10.2017, which is presently under appeal, directed the State Government to comply with the second part of the direction. Being aggrieved, the State and the alleged contemnors are in appeal before us.

The submission of the original writ petitioners - contempt petitioners was to the effect that only the first direction was dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the State; there was no observation as regards the second direction, and with the dismissal of the State's appeal, the second direction must be taken to have been sustained in toto. In their submission, the same situation obtained with the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court. It was, therefore, submitted that the element of discretion would be available to the State only as regards the first direction but the second direction in any case had to be complied with by the State; and since there was no compliance as regards the second direction, the contempt petition ought to be entertained.

Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State however invited our attention to the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the National Rural Health Mission, Government of Rajasthan, extending to six cadres the benefit of increment of 20% in basic honorarium. The comparative details which are part of the order show that 3701 employees were granted the benefit and the financial burden on that count would be to the tune of Rs.709.12 crores per annum for the State exchequer. In his submission, the orders were duly complied with and as such there was no infraction on part of the State functionaries.

Since in the order passed by this Court, it was observed that the "direction issued by this Court may not be read as requiring the State to grant the increment as claimed", in our considered view, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the High Court.

However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, we reserve the rights and give liberty to the writ petitioners to institute such proceedings as are open to them in law to agitate their grievances. If such grievances are raised, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

It shall also be open to the State to place such submissions as are open and available to them.

SLP (civil) Diary No.267 of 2018

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

In view of the decision in aforesaid Appeal, this Appeal also stands allowed in same terms.