Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.399 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25389 OF 2011
BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JASPREET KAUR TALWAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.32267 OF 2011
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.401 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.33885 OF 2011
O R D E R
1. We have heard Mr. Ajay Bansal, learned Advocate in support
of the contempt petitions and Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned
Advocate for the State.
2. The instant Contempt Petitions arise out of the Order dated
10.01.2018 passed by this Court disposing of Special Leave
Petition preferred by the Principal Secretary, Government of
Punjab, PWD Public Health & Others, in terms of the judgment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.08.23
19:54:00 IST
Reason:
rendered by this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit
Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148.
2
3. Paragraph 55 of the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) was to
the following effect:
“55. In view of all our above conclusions,
the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the
High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
[ Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab , 2011 SCC
OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] ,
dated 11-11-2011, is liable to be set aside,
and the same is hereby set aside. The decision
rendered by the Division Bench of the High
Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh
[ State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh , 2009 SCC
OnLine P&H 125] is also liable to be set aside,
and the same is also hereby set aside. We
affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab
v. Rajinder Kumar [ State of Punjab v. Rajinder
Kumar , 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13009], with the
modification that the employees concerned would
be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of
the category to which they belong, but would
not be entitled to allowances attached to the
posts held by them.”
4. Notably, the expression “pay” was considered by this Court
in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.699-700 of 2015, Tej Singh and
Others v. Sarvesh Kaushal and Ors., arising out of decision
dated 11.05.2015 in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso. v.
State of H.P. & Others and connected matters, Civil Appeal
No.2759 of 2015 Etc. In its order dated 04.05.2016 passed in
said Contempt Petitions, this Court observed:
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the opinion that the expression
“minimum of the pay” mentioned in paragraph 22
is intended to mean not only the basic pay +
grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that
comes along with the basic pay and grade pay.
This is in the context of the view expressed by
this Court denying regular appointments to the
petitioners, while taking into consideration
3
the fact that the services of the Home Guards
are used during an emergency and for other
purposes and at the time of their duty they are
empowered with the power of police personnel.
Accordingly, we make it clear that the word
“minimum of the pay” used in paragraph 22 of
th
the judgment and order dated 11 March, 2015
means the basic pay + grade pay + dearness
allowances + washing allowance.”
5. It is a matter of record that so far as the basic pay is
concerned, the contempt petitioners have been paid the
requisite amounts. However, it is submitted that the amounts
towards Dearness Allowance as was accepted by this Court in its
order dated 04.05.2016 have not been made over to the contempt
petitioners.
6. We see force in the submissions made on behalf of the
contempt petitioners.
7. It is, therefore, directed that the amounts payable to all
the contempt petitioners towards Dearness Allowance shall be
made over to them within six weeks from today.
8. It is also projected that the emoluments made over to the
contempt petitioners are in respect of only 38 months and not
for the entirety of the period.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned Advocate assures the Court
that the matter will be looked into and appropriate relief on
that front, if the case is made out, shall be granted.
4
9. The instant contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of.
............................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
............................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
............................J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
New Delhi,
August 16, 2022