Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 259

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, M.R. Shah, JJ.
K. Ananda Rao Etc. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS And Others Etc. – Contemnors/ Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1045-1055 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10276, 10277, 10279, 10281, 10282, 10318, 10319, 10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 of 2017 with Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1873-1891 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 10354-10361 of 2017 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 1176 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1177 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1179 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1181 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12463 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1180 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1182 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12463 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1183 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 959-962 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12464 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 954-955 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10705-10706 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1064-1066 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12469-12470 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 956 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10347 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1130 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12469-12470 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 958 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10760 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1067 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10345 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1865 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12457 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1866 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12457 of 2017 (Ia No. 63541 of 2018) Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1141-1165 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10285 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1441 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10760 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1442 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10330 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1228-1251 of 2018 In C.A. Nos. 10286-10293 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1252-1254 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12866 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1443 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1444 of 2018 In C.A. Nos. 10366 of 2017, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1449 of 2018 In C.A. Nos. 10276-10277 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1764 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10285 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1445 of 2018 In C.A. No. 12463 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1448 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1446 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Contempt Petition (C) No. 1447 of 2018 In C.A. No. 10366 of 2017 Diary No. 40678 of 2018 Diary No. 40697 of 2018 Diary No. 40811 of 2018
Decided on : 07-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the appearing Parties : Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. V. Rangam, AOR Mr. Buddy A Ranganadhan, Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Ms. Y. Vismal Rao, Adv. Ms. M. Yasasvi, Adv. Mr. K. Sharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Mathur, Adv. Ms. Prabha Swami, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Swami, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Ms. Shivani T., Adv. Ms. G. Usha Sri, Adv. Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Harinath Reddy, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Nitin S. Tamwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Krishan Pal Mavi, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere expression "consequential benefits" would not entitle concerned employees anything greater than that contemplated in policy documents.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 r/w Article 215, Constitution of India – State, by order dated 08.08.2017, permitting employees to continue upto 60 years of age in service – Order taking effect from 02.06.2014 – Court, by order dated 09.08.2017 holding all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter to be entitled to protection of their service upto 60 years of age with all consequential benefits arising therefrom – Contending that "consequential benefits" would and must include all back wages even for the period the petitioners had not actually worked, i.e., in the gap period, petitioners filing contempt petition for nonpayment of such amounts – State issuing instructions to treat the gap period as leave, if eligible – Any such aspect of the matter was not in contemplation of the Court while passing order dated 09.08.2017 – The order did not override policy documents culminating in the GO dated 08.08.2017 – Benefits flowed form policy documents spelling out extent of benefits – Unless and until the policy documents were departed from specifically, mere expression "consequential benefits" would not entitle concerned employees anything greater than that contemplated in policy documents – Held there is no violation of the direction given by the Court in order dated 09.08.2017. (Para 14, 15, 17)
       (2004) 1 SCC 592 – Relied upon
       2017(3)ALT 1; 2017(6) ALD 103; (2017) 11 LLJ 535 AP; 1985 (Supp) SCC 432 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The petitioners are employees of Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (Gurukulam), hereinafter referred to as the Society. The age of retirement for all employees except Class IV employees is 58 years of age and that of Class IV employees is 60 years. The Society is an institution included in Schedule X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, "2014 Act", for short.
       The age of superannuation in respect of Government employees was initially 58 years of age. Consequent upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took a decision on 27.06.2014 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years.
       Finance Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Circular clarifying that the enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years would not be applicable to the State Public Enterprises and other autonomous Institutions and Training Centres included in the X Schedule of 2014 Act and non-teaching employees of the Universities. In the 23rd Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Society, a Resolution was passed agreeing in principle to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years on par with the Government employees.
       Based on the aforesaid Resolution a letter was sent by the Society to the State requesting for such enhancement of age of superannuation. On 05.08.2015 GO MS No. 61 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare (EDN A2) Department raising the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees working in the Society. On 07.12.2015, the State Government again issued a Circular directing the managements of all Public Sector Undertakings and Institutions included in the IX & X Schedules of 2014 Act to submit the proposals regarding change in the age of superannuation. Thereafter by virtue of Resolution i.e. GO MS No. 112 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Finance (HR IV - FR) Department on 18.06.2016, the Resolution dated 05.08.2015 was kept in abeyance.
       The Resolution dated 18.06.2016 governing pensionary benefits was challenged by the employees of various institutions mentioned in Schedule IX and X of 2014 Act by filing Writ Petitions in the High Court.
       While the challenge was pending before the Supreme Court, G.O.Ms. No. 102 dated 27.06.2017 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department. After considering the matters, the Government decided to give in-principle approval for enhancement of the age of superannuation.
       The Supreme Court directed: in case the order dated 05.05.2017 has not been implemented, the benefits due to the beneficiaries covered by the said order shall be deemed to have been in service from the date of the order and those responsible for non-implementation shall be personally liable for the consequences.
       The contempt petitioners allege non-compliance of the order dated 05.05.2017.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no violation of the direction given by the Court in order dated 09.08.2017.
       Result: Contempt petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit. J.

These contempt petitions allege violation of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2017 passed by this Court in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13623 of 2017 (A. Veerraju and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) and all connected matters. All the Contempt Petitions give rise to the same questions and are dealt with together. Since Contempt Petition Nos. 1045-1055 of 2018, K. Ananda Rao and Ors Shri S.S. Rawat, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government and Vice-Chairman (FAC) APTWREI Society and Others and Contempt Petition No. 1873-1891 of 2017 (K. Paul and ors. etc. vs Ajay Jain and others etc.) were taken as lead matters, the facts pertaining to these two contempt cases are mentioned in detail.

2. Contempt Petition No. 1045-1055 of 2018

2.1 The petitioners are employees of Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (Gurukulam), hereinafter referred to as the Society. Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Resident Educational Institution Society Retirement Rules, 1999 ('1999 Rules' for short) inter alia provides for conditions of service of the employees of the Society and according to Rule 17(1) the age of retirement for all employees except Class IV employees is 58 years of age and that of Class IV employees is 60 years. The Society is an institution included in Schedule X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, "2014 Act", for short.

2.2 The age of superannuation in respect of Government employees under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of superannuation) Act, 1984 ('1984 Act' for short) was initially 58 years of age. Consequent upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took a decision on 27.06.2014 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Section 3 of 1984 Act was accordingly amended and the age of superannuation was raised to 60 years. Section 3 of the Amending Act was as under:

"3. In the principal Act, after section 3 so amended, the following new section shall be inserted, namely:-
"Savings. 3A. subject to the provisions of section 3,-
(1) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multi-zonal Cadre and who by general or specific order of the Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and serving provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana, and if he is finally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the said Act, 2014 shall be deemed to be continuously serving in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multi-zonal Cadre falling in the territories of both the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, who by a general or a specific order of the Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, 2014, is serving provisionally and retires on attaining the age of fifty eight years and on his final allotment, subsequently to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the said Act but before attaining the age of sixty years, shall be re-inducted into service/post with effect from the date of his final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh without break in service:
Provided that an employee who attained the age of sixty years before the final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the government of India, the service rendered in the State of Telangana till the date of his retirement shall be considered notionally as if, he has rendered service in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of calculation of his pensionary benefits.
(3) The service conditions of the employee of State Cadre/Multi-zonal Cadre working provisionally in the St

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 259

IMPORTANT POINTMere expression "consequential benefits" would not entitle concerned employees anything greater than that contemplated in policy documents.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere expression "consequential benefits" would not entitle concerned employees anything greater than that contemplated in policy documents.