Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st May, 2024
CONT.CAS(C) 825-826/2006
CONT.CAS(C) 835-837/2006
CONT.CAS(C) 830-831/2006 CONT.CAS(C) 833-833/2006
M.P.SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Nandadevi Deka
Jaggi, Advocates.
(M): 8601324445
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, GNCTD
Email:officeofadvrishikeshkumar@gmail.com Mr. Siddharth Dias, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions have been filed with prayers for directions to the respondents to pay the arrears along with Dearness Allowance (“DA”) and Non Practicing Allowance (“NPA”), along with interest, as directed by this Court.
2. The petitioners are the employees working with the Family Planning Association of India, in their Family Planning Clinics and Centres, which are fully funded by grant-in-aid by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”). The petitioners filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) 3007/1989, praying inter-alia for directions to the GNCTD for providing the same and similar emoluments and benefits to the petitioners, as are being provided to government employees employed in various hospitals in Delhi, performing the similar jobs. The petitioners also prayed for grant of benefits of 4th Pay Commission retrospectively, as granted to the employees of other Centres in the various hospitals of Delhi working for family planning and getting grant-in-aid from GNCTD.
3. Vide judgment dated 05th August, 1992 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 3007/1989, directions were issued to the GNCTD to release funds for payment to the petitioners, the pay and allowances payable under the 4th Pay Commission to government servants performing similar jobs as the petitioners, w.e.f. the date from which, such benefits were extended to the government servants. Thus, the following directions were passed vide judgment dated 05th August, 1992:- “xxx xxx xxx The respondent No. 1 is directed to release funds, for payment to the Petitioners, the pay and allowances payable under the 4th Pay Commission to Government servants performing similar jobs as the petitioners w.e.f. the date from which such benefits were extended to the government servants within two months from the date hereof to Respondent No. 2 who should disburse the same to the Petitioners within 15 days of the receipt of the said funds. Parties are left to bear their own costs. ” (Emphasis Supplied)
4. Subsequently, the GNCTD filed an appeal, being LPA No. 54/1992, before the Division Bench of this Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18th November, 2005, where, the Division Bench held that the petitioners herein were entitled for the benefits of 4th Pay Commission from 1986, till the time they had been granted those benefits, in or about 1992. The judgment dated 18th November, 2005 in LPA NO. 54/1992, reads as under:
19. We find no merit in this appeal. It has been brought to our notice that 4th Pay Commission has recommended for the revision of pay scales from 1986. The respondents nos. 1 to 19 were denied the benefit of 4th Pay Commission from 1986 till 1992 and they were given the benefit of 4th Pay Commission only after the passing of the judgment dated 5.8.1992 by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are entitled for the benefits of 4th Pay commission from 1986 till the time they have been granted these benefits in or about 1992. Therefore, the appellant is directed to pay all the arrears to the respondent nos. 1 to 19.
20. Consequently the appeal is without any merit. The appellant is liable to pay and the respondent nos. 1 to 19 are held entitled to all the arrears with simple interest, as per order dated 29th January,1993, at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellants are, therefore, directed to pay to the respondent nos. 1 to 19 all the arrears of dearness allowance, NPA and arrears of 4th pay commission from 1986 with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the respondent nos. 1 to 19 within a period of three months. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. ”
5. Against the aforesaid judgment, the GNCTD approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6693/2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 24th April, 2006. Thus, the aforesaid judgment dated 05th August, 1992 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3007/1989, as upheld vide Judgment dated 18th November, 2005 in LPA No. 54/1992, attained finality.
6. Perusal of the aforesaid judgments, show that directions had been issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of 4th Pay Commission to the petitioners herein from 1986 till 1992. Thus, the petitioners, who are the Paramedics, Doctors and Nurses working in various Non-Governmental Organisations (“NGOs”), were held entitled to the same emoluments and benefits, as that of the government employees employed in the various hospitals in Delhi, performing similar jobs.
7. This Court notes that vide order dated 17th November, 2023, it had been recorded, as follows:-
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GNCTD submits that an amount of Rs. 74 lakhs approx. is due as per their calculation and out of which Rs. 61 lakhs approx. have already been paid to respondent No.2/NGO.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/NGO appearing through VC, acknowledges that the said amount was paid and already disbursed to the beneficiaries. Ld counsel for the petitioner does not agree with the said statement.
6. It is directed that respondent No.2 shall file an affidavit of a competent officer of the NGO thereby supplying the details as to the amount that has been paid in total as also paid to each individual beneficiaries including the manner and date of payment. The same shall be supported by the relevant documents. The affidavit with the aforesaid relevant documents be filed within the period of six weeks from today, after supplying the advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that the appropriate sanction is obtained for disbursement of the remaining amount to the petitioners/beneficiaries. An affidavit in this regard shall be also filed within a period of six weeks from today, after supplying the advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. The aforesaid disposition is directed by the Court shall be without prejudice.
9. Re-notify on 27.03.2024. ” (Emphasis Supplied)
8. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that the respondent no. 1/GNCTD, had calculated an amount of ₹ 74,00,000/-, which as per the calculation of respondent no. 1, was due and payable to the petitioners, in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court.
9. It is undisputed that out of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 74,00,000/-, an amount of ₹ 61,00,000/-, has already been paid by the Delhi Government to respondent no. 2/NGO, which amounts, have since been disbursed to the petitioners, by the respondent no. 2.
10. The controversy raised before this Court, is with respect to the balance amounts, which are payable to the petitioners. While, it is the case of the GNCTD that an amount of ₹ 13,48,114/- remains due and payable to the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said amount, as stated on behalf of GNCTD, is not correct. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, an approximate amount of ₹ 18,93,085/-, is due and payable to the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel appearing for GNCTD, submits that the pending amount of ₹ 13,48,114/-, which is payable to the petitioners, is already pending approval with the Finance Department of the Delhi Government. He submits that the aforesaid amount shall be disbursed to respondent no. 2/NGO expeditiously, subject to the approval from the Finance Department, GNCTD.
12. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the „Due and Drawn Statement‟ filed on behalf of the Directorate of Family Welfare, GNCTD, to submit that certain petitioners have been paid excess amounts, while other petitioners have been paid deficit amounts. Thus, she submits that there is an anomaly in not only with respect to the calculations made by GNCTD, as to the balance amounts that are due and payable to the petitioners, but, also as to the exact amounts, which are payable to each of the petitioners.
13. Learned counsel appearing for GNCTD submits that the respondent no. 1/GNCTD has released the requisite amounts to the respondent NO. 2/NGO, as the petitioners are employees of the said NGO. He further submits that the amounts are disbursed by the respondent no. 2/NGO.
14. Perusal of the record shows that there were directions passed by this Court, wherein, the petitioners were treated at par with the employees of the hospitals under the Delhi Government. Thus, there were categorical directions that the petitioners were entitled for payment under 4th Pay Commission at par and in the same manner, as other employees of the Delhi Government, who were working in the hospitals.
15. This Court notes the stand of GNCTD, wherein, it has stated that as per its calculation, an amount of approximately ₹ 74,00,000/-, was payable to the petitioners, out of which, an amount of ₹ 61,00,000/-, has already been paid by the GNCTD to respondent no. 2/NGO.
16. This Court also notes that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has admitted to the receipt of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 61,00,000/-, which has been disbursed to the petitioners by the respondent no.2-NGO.
17. This Court also notes the submission made on behalf of respondent no. 1/GNCTD that in terms of its calculation, the balance amount of ₹ 13,48,114/-, is pending approval with the Finance Department, GNCTD.
18. Considering the aforesaid, it is manifest that substantial compliance of the judgments in question, have been made by the respondents. Once, there are substantial compliances, it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience or non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court by the respondents. It is undisputed that a party can be proceeded against in contempt proceedings, only if it is established that there is willful and contumacious disobedience, and violation of the judicial orders passed by courts. Thus, when there is substantial compliance by the respondents, then, there is no cause of action against the respondents for holding them guilty of contempt.
19. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association Vs Ashok Kumar Sinha and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 416, has held as under:-
24. At the outset, we may observe that we are conscious of the limits within which we can undertake the scrutiny of the steps taken by the respondents, in these contempt proceedings. The Court is supposed to adopt cautionary approach which would mean that if there is a substantial compliance with the directions given in the judgment, this Court is not supposed to go into the nitty-gritty of the various measures taken by the respondents. It is also correct that only if there is wilful and contumacious disobedience of the orders, that the Court would take cognizance. Even when there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, case of contempt is not made out. At the same time, it is permissible for the Court to examine as to whether the steps taken to purportedly comply with the directions of the judgment are in furtherance of its compliance or they tend to defeat the very purpose for which the directions were issued. We can certainly go into the issue as to whether the Government took certain steps in order to implement the directions of this Court and thereafter withdrew those measures and whether it amounts to non-implementation. Limited inquiry from the aforesaid perspective, into the provisions of the 2014 Rules can also be undertaken to find out as to whether those provisions amount to nullifying the effect of the very merger of BSES with BES. As all these aspects have a direct co-relation with the issue as to whether the directions are implemented or not. We are, thus, of the opinion that this Court can indulge in this limited scrutiny as to whether provisions made in the 2014 Rules frustrate the effect of the judgment and attempt is to achieve those results which were the arguments raised by the respondents at the time of hearing of CAs Nos. 8226-27 of 2012 but rejected by this Court. To put it otherwise, we can certainly examine as to whether the 2014 Rules are made to implement the judgment or these Rules in effect nullify the result of merger of the two cadres. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis supplied)
20. As regards the admitted amount of ₹ 13,48,114/-, that is to be paid by the GNCTD, it is directed that the GNCTD shall release the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from today, to the respondent no. 2/NGO, so that the said amount is further disbursed to the petitioners.
21. As regards the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the discrepancy in the calculation made by the GNCTD, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the GNCTD with a representation, along with their detailed chart of calculations, to show the amounts which are payable to the petitioners, as per their own calculation.
22. Further, in view of the concern raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that certain petitioners have been disbursed excess amount, while others have been disbursed deficit amounts, the GNCTD is directed to give a detailed chart showing the specific amounts released to each of the petitioners, along with the dates on which the said amounts were released.
23. The petitioners are at liberty to raise the aforesaid issue also, with the GNCTD, at the time of submitting their representation.
24. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 18th November, 2005 passed in LPA No. 54/1992, wherein, there were categorical directions that the petitioners shall be entitled to simple interest @ 12% per annum, in terms of a previous order dated 29th January, 1993 passed in LPA No. 54/1992.
25. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that requisite interest has not been paid to the petitioners.
26. Responding to the same, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that interest till the year 2007 has already been paid to the petitioners, in terms of the settlement between the parties. However, the said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits, that the petitioners are entitled for interest from the year 2007 till the actual date of payment.
27. In view of the aforesaid, this Court grants liberty to the petitioners to raise this plea at the time of making representation to the GNCTD, which shall be duly considered by the GNCTD.
28. Upon receipt of the representation from the petitioners, along with their calculations as to the further amounts payable to them, the GNCTD shall consider the said representation and take a decision therein. At the time of considering the representation of the petitioners, the GNCTD shall also grant hearing to the authorized representative(s) of the petitioners. The decision in this regard shall be taken by the GNCTD expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of representation by the petitioners.
29. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by any decision taken by the GNCTD, as to the balance amounts payable to them, they are at liberty to seek their remedies, in accordance with law.
30. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J MAY 21, 2024 c