Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
Narinder Paul Kaushik & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Chief Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 534 Of 2021 & CM APPL. 24240 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Sumit Mishra & Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
The term 'last pay drawn' includes all allowances, and failure to comply with this interpretation constitutes contempt of court.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The petitioners sought contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of prior court orders regarding salary calculations as Members of the SCDRC and DCRF. The court found the respondents guilty of contempt for failing to comply with its directives to include all allowances in the 'last pay drawn'. (Paras 24-25)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court clarified that the term 'last pay drawn' includes all allowances, including dearness allowance, and directed the respondents to calculate the government's contribution to the petitioner's CPF. (Paras 22-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, former judicial officers, sought contempt proceedings against the GNCTD for not complying with court orders regarding their salaries as members of consumer forums.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondents committed willful contempt by not adhering to its previous orders regarding salary calculations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the term 'last pay drawn' included all allowances, including dearness allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the term 'last pay drawn' encompasses all allowances, and the respondents were found guilty of contempt for failing to comply with this interpretation.
Result: The respondents were directed to calculate the government's contribution to the petitioner's CPF and file a compliance report.
JUDGMENT :
(Dharmesh Sharma, J.)
1. The petitioners, who were initially five in number, seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the common order-cum-judgement dated 12.02.2019,[LPA Nos. 322, 333, 334, 335 & 345/2018] of the Division Bench of this Court and the common order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench in review petitions,[R.P. Nos. 126, 141 & 142/2019] and CM Application No.22027/2019, in terms of the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,[The CC Act].
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners, some of whom retired as the judicial officers from the District Courts of Delhi, while others from the Executive Department of the GNCTD,[Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi] were appointed as Members in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,[SCDRC] and District Consumer Redressal Forums,[DCRF] in Delhi.
3. In terms of Amended Rules 3(1)(b) and 6(1)(b) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987,[The Rules], as amended vide the notification dated 17.09.2013, it is stated that upon appointment as Members in the aforesaid authorities viz., SCDRC and DCRF, the petitioners had the option to receive salaries based on the last pay drawn minus their pension.
4. At this juncture, it may be clarified that, except for the petitioner No.4/Shri O.P. Gupta, the remaining petitioners have since been granted appropriate reliefs by the respondents.
5. The original petitioners initially preferred writ petitions,[W.P.(C) 3134/2015, W.P.(C) 10512/2015, W.P.(C) 10516/2015, W.P.(C) 10518/2015, W.P.(C) 10531/2015, W.P.(C) 8423/2015, W.P.(C) 8976/2015, W.P.(C) 4055/2016, W.P.(C) 4508/2016, W.P.(C) 9746/2016] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which were later clubbed together, seeking prayers to the effect that the ‘last pay drawn’ included the allowances and perquisites as well, which were unlawfully denied to them by the respondents. The said writ petitions were initially dismissed vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2019 passed the following directions: -
“25. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside. It is declared that the expression 'last pay drawn' occurring in the proviso to Rule 3 (1) (b) and Rule 6(1) (b) of the Rules would include not only basic pay but also Dearness Allowance. The emoluments payable to the Appellants for the period during which they served as Members of the DCDRF or SCRDC shall be re-worked accordingly and the arrears paid to each of them by the Respondents within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the Respondents would be liable to pay simple interest @ 6%per annum on the said sum till the date of payment. 26. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. The pending applications are also disposed of.”
7. However, the appellants/petitioners were constrained to prefer review petitions, raising a short question to the effect that the expression ‘last pay drawn’ occurring in the proviso to Rules 3(1)(b) and 6(1)(b) of the Rules would include ‘not only basic pay but also all other allowances including dearness allowance’. The review petitions were allowed, and in the operative portion of the directions contained in the order dated 08.11.2019, it was declared that the expression ‘last pay drawn’ would include not only the Basic Pay but all other allowances including dearness allowances,[DA], which were drawn prior to the appointment as Member of either the SCDRC and DCRF.
8. Insofar as the present petitioner No.4/Shri O.P. Gupta is concerned, who served for about five years and six months in the SCDRC, the issue remains pen
