Back
2016 Supreme(Megh) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
S.K. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
O.S. Marak - Respondent
Contempt Petition No. 36 of 2015
Decided On : 21-09-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.C. Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, Senior Advocate, Mr. P.N. Nongbri, Advocate
Headnote:
CONTEMPT - Enhanced Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) - Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2010 - Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985 - The Court held that the respondents are not justified in suggesting now in this contempt matter that the enhanced limit of DCRG was available only w.e.f. 01.01.2007, when such had never been their case in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The Court further held that the respondents are not entitled now to suggest a different cut-off date so as to deprive the petitioner of the enhanced limit of DCRG.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who retired on 31.01.2006, filed a writ petition seeking the same enhanced amount of DCRG. In the writ petition, the petitioner specifically averred that enhanced DCRG was available from 01.01.2006, the date from which the revised pay scale and other benefits contained in the Government of India Circular were made applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of deficit colleges in Meghalaya. Significantly, in the reply submission in the said writ petition filed by the petitioner with two other persons, it was rather admitted on behalf of the Government that enhanced DCRG was available from 01.01.2006 while seeking to question if the petitioners were at all in service on 01.01.2006. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 31.07.2015 with the short order, essentially to the effect that the respondent would consider the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of the decision in Shri Wandell Passah (supra) within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents are not justified in suggesting now in this contempt matter that the enhanced limit of DCRG was available only w.e.f. 01.01.2007, when such had never been their case in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The Court further held that the respondents are not entitled now to suggest a different cut-off date so as to deprive the petitioner of the enhanced limit of DCRG.
Issues: Whether the respondents are justified in suggesting now in this contempt matter that the enhanced limit of DCRG was available only w.e.f. 01.01.2007, when such had never been their case in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondents are not justified in suggesting now in this contempt matter that the enhanced limit of DCRG was available only w.e.f. 01.01.2007, when such had never been their case in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The Court further held that the respondents are not entitled now to suggest a different cut-off date so as to deprive the petitioner of the enhanced limit of DCRG.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the contempt petition and directed the respondents to carry out compliance of the order passed by the Court in its letter and spirit and for that matter, this Court has disapproved the proposition of the respondents where they intended to take a stand different than that was taken in the writ petition in this Court.
JUDGMENT :
Shri. Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary In this contempt petition, the petitioner asserts that the contemnors, the Under Secretary and the Director of Higher and Technical Education in the Department of Education, Government of Meghalaya, were deliberately avoiding to comply with the order dated 31.07.2015 as passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 24 of 2015 by denying him the benefit of enhanced amount of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity ['DCRG'].
2. The referred order dated 31.07.2015 reads, in its entirety, as under:-
"31.07.2015
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. KC Gautam who submits that this instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C)No.334 of 2012 - Wandell Passah & Ors v. State of Meghalaya & Ors reported in (2014) 1 MJ 471, and prayed that the matter may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the said judgment reported above.
Heard also learned State counsel Mr. S Sen Gupta.
Vide order of this Court dated 02.06.2015, it appears that the matter was left upon the respondent No.4 to consider the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of the records and documents. But till date, it appears that no effective steps have been taken by the respondent No.4. Therefore, the respondent No.4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment referred to above within three months failing which the petitioners will be at liberty to file contempt of court.
With the above observation and direction, this instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of."
3. The aforesaid short order does not carry all the relevant factual aspects, obviously for being based on the submissions that the matter was covered by another decision; and the directions had only been to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the order passed in another case. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the present matter and for just and proper disposal of the case, it is rather necessary to refer to the relevant background aspects leading to this contempt petition. The background
4. The basic dispute had been in relation to the claim for enhanced amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity by the retired lecturers of deficit colleges in the State of Meghalaya. Eleven such lecturers, who had retired on different dates between 31.12.2007 to 30.06.2012 preferred the above-referred writ petition in this Court, being WP(C) No. 334 of 2012: Shri Wandell Passah and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others, while stating grievance against the letters dated 19.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 as issued by the officers in the Department of Education, Government of Meghalaya that only those teachers who had not drawn their DCRG as on 24.12.2012 would be eligible for the benefit of enhanced amount of DCRG. The petitioners pointed out in the said writ petition and the Court also took note of the position that under an order dated 22.03.2010, the Government of Meghalaya had adopted and implemented UGC norms for revision of pay scale of the teachers in the Government colleges and for the eligible teachers in the deficit colleges in the State of Meghalaya; and under another order dated 24.02.2012, the Government's approval was also conveyed to the proposal for enhancement of the ceiling of DCRG from Rs. 3.50 lakhs to Rs. 7.00 lakhs. This Government order dated 24.02.2012 reads as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
******
No. EDN.22/2007/81
Dated Shillong, the 24th February, 2012
From: Smti. E. Kharmawphlang, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department.
To, The Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong.
Subject:- Enhancement of Ceiling of D.C.R.G./Retirement Gratuity to teachers of Deficit College.
Ref:- No. CE/GC/Enhance/2011/12 dated 9th August, 2011
Sir,
I am directed to convey Government's approval to the proposal for enhancement of th
