Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Bihar State Govt. Sec. School Teachers Association – Appellant
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors. – Respondents
[Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 88-89 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8226-8227 of 2012]
Decided On : 07-05-2014
(1996) 6 SCC 291; (1999) 2 SCC 537; (2009) 5 SCC 417; (1996) 4 SCC 622; (2010) 14 SCC 274 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 309, Proviso – Framing service rules is prerogative of Government – Can be challenged separately, not in contempt petition – However if the rules are purported to be framed in compliance of order of the Court, contempt Court will have jurisdiction to scrutinize and examine validity thereof. (Para 33)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 129 r/w section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Directions contained in judgment dated 23.11.2012 in C.A. Nos. 8226-8227 of 2012 being reiteration of earlier judgment dated 19.4.2006 specifically held Resolution dated 7.7.2006 valid and quashed the later Resolution dated 17.1.2008 annulling the earlier Resolution dated 7.7.2006 – Thus respondents were to revive the earlier order/ Resolution of merger as well as combined gradation list issued earlier – Government Resolution dated 2.4.2013 reviving earlier Resolution No. 1209 dated 7.7.2006 and withdrawing Notification No. 1855 dated 18.11.2007 but not reviving the combined gradation list – While granting ACP validity of Resolution No. 1209 dated 7.7.2006 was questioned – IA 25-26 of 2013 filed by BES Association attempting to rake up the decided issue of gradation list dismissed – Rules 2014 nullifying the effect of merger and providing what was declined by the Court in C.A. Nos. 25-26/2013 – Discriminating teaching cadre members – Giving a go-bye to the combined gradation list and segregating the two cadres of BSES in BES – Rules 2014 amount to contempt of the Court – Rule 27 of 2014 Rules needs modification as per directions given. (Para 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
These contempt proceedings arise out of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Supreme Court in CA Nos. 8226-8227 of 2012.
The petitioner is an Association representing the teachers of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service (hereinafter referred to as BSES for brevity). They had filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court claiming merger of their cadre with the Bihar Education Service (hereinafter referred to BES for brevity). The writ petition was allowed and the LPA and the SLP filed against the same were dismissed. Since the benefits of merger of cadre were still not being granted, another writ petition was filed, which too was allowed and affirmed in LPA. Although leave was granted in the SLP filed by the State of Bihar, ultimately the Civil Appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.04.2006 resulting in the outcome in favour of the petitioner.
In compliance of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, a Resolution merging the cadre of BSES with BES was issued on 07.07.2006 and the BSES teachers were granted benefits of the merger, like enhancement of payscale, promotion etc. At this stage, a writ petition was filed by BES Association (BESA) challenging the merger. A single judge of the High Court allowed it vide judgment dated 31.10.2007, which was affirmed by a Division Bench on 21.05.2010. This judgment was challenged before this Court by filing SLP.
Immediately after the judgment of the learned single judge, the State Government withdrew the Resolution of merger dated 07.07.2006 by a notification dated 19.11.2007 expressly mentioning therein that the same was being issued in light of the High court judgment dated 31.10.2007 and thereby all benefits of merger of cadre were withdrawn. Several consequential benefits had been granted to the teachers pursuant to the merger by issuing various Resolutions. These benefits were also withdrawn and in fact a Resolution was passed by the state government on 17.01.2008 directing that the teachers would get pay and other benefits, as they were getting prior to the merger, thereby nullifying the effect of earlier Resolution of merger dated 7.7.2006.
According to the Petitioner with the upholding of the Resolution dated 7.07.2006, which was a Resolution of merger, that Resolution stood revived and restored by the Court itself and the Government was only required to grant the consequential benefits to the BSES teachers by passing formal orders in this behalf. Notwithstanding the same, in compliance with the request letter dated 24.01.2013, the Petitioner submitted the required details vide communication dated 28.01.2003. However, even thereafter nothing happened even when the matter was persued repeatedly and almost on daily basis with the Government. It is at that stage that present contempt petition was filed on 23.01.2013 alleging that the Respondents herein had deliberately, willfully and intentionally failed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 23.11.2012 by refusing to grant all admissible benefits of mergers to the Petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
Rules 2014 amounts to contempt of the Court.
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1. These contempt proceedings arise out of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 passed by this Court in CA Nos. 8226-8227 of 2012. Before we take note of the exact nature of directions given in that judgment which according to the petitioners have been flouted contumaciously and deliberately, we would like to take note of the history of litigation culminating in passing of the said judgment.
2. The petitioner is an Association representing the teachers of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service (hereinafter referred to as BSES for brevity). They had filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court claiming merger of their cadre with the Bihar Education Service (hereinafter referred to BES for brevity). The writ petition was allowed and the LPA and the SLP filed against the same were dismissed. Since the benefits of merger of cadre were still not being granted, another writ petition was filed, which too was allowed and affirmed in LPA. Although leave was granted in the SLP filed by the State of Bihar, ultimately the Civil Appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.04.2006 resulting in the outcome in favour of the petitioner.
3. In compliance of the said judgment of this Court, a Resolution merging the cadre of BSES with BES was issued on 07.07.2006 and the BSES teachers were granted benefits of the merger, like enhancement of payscale, promotion etc. At this stage, a writ petition was filed by BES Association (BESA) challenging the merger. A single judge of the High Court allowed it vide judgment dated 31.10.2007, which was affirmed by a Division Bench on 21.05.2010. This judgment was challenged before this Court by filing SLP.
4. Immediately after the judgment of the learned single judge, the State Government withdrew the Resolution of merger dated 07.07.2006 by a notification dated 19.11.2007 expressly mentioning therein that the same was being issued in light of the High court judgment dated 31.10.2007 and thereby all benefits of merger of cadre were withdrawn. Several consequential benefits had been granted to the teachers pursuant to the merger by issuing various Resolutions. These benefits were also withdrawn and in fact a Resolution was passed by the state government on 17.01.2008 directing that the teachers would get pay and other benefits, as they were getting prior to the merger, thereby nullifying the effect of earlier Resolution of merger dated 7.7.2006.
5. The Special Leave Petition was granted and appeal was ultimately heard finally. Eventually this appeal was allowed by a detailed judgment dated 23.11.2012, thereby setting aside the judgment of the High Court. This Court also quashed the notification of the State Government dated 19.11.2007, by which the benefits of merger granted to the teachers had been withdrawn. As a corollary State Government's Resolution dated 07.07.2006 was upheld and restored by which the cadre of the BSES teachers, Teaching Branch had been merged with that of BES and the State Government was directed to act accordingly.
6. The conclusive portion of the detailed judgment dated 23.11.2012 reflects raison d'etre for arriving at such a conclusion and the precise nature thereof. We, therefore, reproduce the same hereunder for the sake of further discussion:
"44. This entire discussion leads us to only one conclusion that the learned Single Judge who heard the petition CWJC No.10091/2006, which began the third round of litigation filed on behalf of the Bihar Education Service Association, had no business to re-open the entire controversy, even otherwise. The State Govt. had already passed a resolution dated 07.07.2006 after the order of this Court dated 19.04.2006. While examining the legality of that resolution (which was defended by the State Govt. at this stage before the learned Single Judge) the entire controversy was once again gone into. The law of finality of decisions which is enshrined in the principle of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto, does not permi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
