Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1319
2005(6) Supreme 650
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.N. Agrawal & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Chander Pal Singh & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Ajay Kumar Joshi & Anr. —Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 110-111 of 2003
In
Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995
With
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 490-491 of 2004 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995
Decided on 5-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners/Appellants : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Rajani C.S., Dhurv Kr. Jain, Tathagat Harshwardhan and Prem Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra and Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Sections 2 and 12—Respondents were alleged to have wilfully disobeyed judgment and order passed by High Court and affirmed in appeal by Supreme Court—Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of cooperative societies were held entitled to hold civil post and were government servant—Grievance of petitioner that they were not treated as Government servants nor were being treated at par with Amins of Revenue Department and were not paid salary as was being paid to Amins in Revenue Department—Rules as “The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Collection Fund and the Amins and other Staff Service Rules, 2002 were notified—Rule 6 mandated that vacancies of Amins shall be filled by already serving Amins on commission basis who had made satisfactory recovery during last five years on basis of seniority—No fresh recruitment was to take place on post of Amins till all Amins on commission basis were absorbed—No violation of judgment and order could be said to have been made—Assurance by Council of respondent that Amins in Cooperative Department and Amins in Revenue Department shall be bracketed in same pay scale.
Held : This Court has affirmed the view taken by the Allahabad High Court that Amins on commission basis are holding the civil posts and they are Government servants. This Court did not change the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 129 of 1996 and affirmed that direction. This Court did not say that the Amins should be given same salary or that they should be immediately absorbed. This Court affirmed the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and at the same time affirmed the order as already quoted above. That means the Amins will continue to be treated as Amins on commission basis till they are regularly absorbed in the cadre of Amins. The Division Bench further mandated that till all these Amins are absorbed, fresh recruitment shall not be made. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2002 clearly mandated that the vacancies of Amins shall be filled by already serving Amins on commission basis who have made satisfactory recovery during the last five years on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit and subject to their willingness and likewise Sahyogies shall be absorbed subject to availability of vacancies. No fresh recruitment shall take place on the post of Amins till all these Amins on commission basis are absorbed. Therefore, in this view of the matter we are of opinion that the respondents have not committed any violation of the order of this Court or that of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is difference of pay between the Amins in the Co-operative Department and that of the Amins of the Revenue Department. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent State of U.P. submits that this anomaly will be rectified and that the Amins in the Co-operative Department and the Amins in the Revenue Department would be bracketed in the same pay scale. (Paras 10 and 11)
Judgment
A.K. Mathur, J.—These Contempt Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Sections 2 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.
2. The grievance of the petitioners was that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the judgment and orders passed by this Court on 20.3.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995. Therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.
3. In order to decide these contempt petitions it would be necessary to recapitulate some facts. Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995 along with Civil Appeal No. 2167 of 2001 @ SLP (C) No. 15849 of 1993, Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1994, Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 1997 were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 20.3.2001. By that order this Court affirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of the co-operative societies hold civil post and are government servants.
4. The grievance of the petitioners was that despite the order passed by this Court the petitioners are not treated as Government servants nor are they being treated at par with the Amins of the Revenue Department and they are not paid the salary in the scale prescribed for the Amins of the Revenue Department and they are still working on commission basis.
5. Initially, a writ petition was filed by one Chandra Prakash Pandey and others before the Allahabad High Court, Bench at Lucknow. The grievance in that writ petition was that the writ petitioners were appointed as Amins on commission basis and they are discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the Amins in the Revenue Department, therefore, they should be treated as holding civil posts & Government servants and they should be paid same salary as are being paid to the Amins regularly appointed in the Revenue Department. The writ petitioners were appointed in the Co-operative Department by the Collectors for collection of dues of the Co-operative Societies & Banks. This Writ Petition No. 199 of 1991 was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved against that order, an appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. The said appeal was registered as Special Appeal No. 15 of 1994. The writ petitioners i.e. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others are filed Special Appeal No. 39 of 1994 alleging that learned Single Judge has not directed to fix them in the pay scale of Amins appointed in the Revenue Department & arrear of salary. Both these appeals were heard together and disposed of by the Division Bench, by a common order. The Division Bench (Brijesh Kumar & D.K. Seth, JJ.) of the High Court in paragraph 21 of its order recorded as follows:
“It therefore, seems to us clear that the Kurk Amins meant for realization of the dues of the cooperative societies as appearing in the present case, reveals some ingredients which bring the post of Kurk Amins and the Sahayogis viz. the petitioners maintained for realization of the dues of the co-operative societies as Government servant. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the learned trial court that the petitioners have been holding civil posts. We therefore decline to interfere with the judgment and order appealed against.”
While disposing of Special Appeal No. 39(SB) of 1994, filed by Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. it was observed as follows:
“Now turning to Special Appeal No. 39(SB) of 1994 we find that since the post held by the petitioners are civil post and that they are government servants, therefore, their pay is to be regulated by the existing pay scale according to the rules applicable to the petitioners at par with their counterparts in the Department. It is not for the court to decide as to what scale of pay they are entitled to. No such materials have also been placed before us. In that view of the matt
