Npc Employees Association (Regd.) Through Its General Secretary, Prakash Chand Vs. P.K. Chowdhry and Others - Court Judgment

Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)

1. The CP-119/2012 has been filed by the original applicant alleging non-compliance of the Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2009 passed in the TA No. 99/2009. It has been alleged that despite recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, the respondents have failed to implement the same on one pretext or the other. The present order is being passed after considering the reply-affidavit filed by the respondents in response to the notice in the C.P. and hearing the counsels on both the sides.

2. Through the TA-99/2009 the Junior Assistants and Junior Stenographers of the respondent National Productivity Council, through their Employees’ Association, were assailing the impugned order dated 12.07.2007 and seeking directions for continuance of payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- as per the Administrative Instruction issued earlier. Besides, directions for suspension of the replacement of their salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7500/- had also been sought.

2.1 The background of the above controversy was that the posts of Junior Assistants and Junior Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- were below the posts of Draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. In pursuance of the decision of the then D.G., NPC for abolition of the post of Draughtsman, an Administrative Instruction had been issued to accord the next higher pay scale Rs.5500-9000/- to the employees under the ACP Scheme. This was however subject to the approval by the Governing Body. As the matter was placed in the G.B. Meeting on 07.06.2007, the proposal was not approved and instead it was directed that the enhanced payments based on this order should be immediately stopped and the matter be put up for detailed examination of the Government. Vide the impugned Administrative Instruction No.704 dated 12.07.2007 the benefits given to all eligible employees as per the Administrative Instruction No. 693/2006 dated 31.03.2006 had been stopped w.e.f. July, 2007.

3. While considering this TA, the Delhi High Court’s order/interim orders in some other Writ Petitions filed by the employees of the NPC only had been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The conclusive findings and the operational directions as contained in Para-6 of the order are reproduced below:-

“6. However, as in respect of one of the cadres of Stenographers an Equivalence Committee is to be constituted to determine the equivalence, which has since been constituted, the claim of the applicant-Association for grant of next higher pay scale in lieu of the pay scale granted under Assured Career Progression has now to be examined by the Equivalence Committee. As we do not any multiplicity of consideration by constituting another Committee, which would further complicate the issue, this Committee shall consider in detail the contentions to be raised by the Association in respect of continuance of their enhanced and revised pay scale and come out with a finding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that till then status quo as to the pay scale of the applicant-Association shall be maintained by the respondents and no further recovery shall be effected. As regards the employees, who are common to the proceedings before us and the Apex Court, recovery already effected would remain subject to the final outcome of the decision of Equivalence Committee.”

4. It is stated in the C.P. that the requisite recommendation had been made by the Equivalence Committee on 23.04.2010 and the same have attained finality on 27.05.2011. Despite the aforesaid favourable recommendations, the respondents are alleged to have failed to implement the same. Para-2(D) also makes an averment of a direction by the Tribunal of the implementation of the report of the Equivalence Committee without reference to the Court. Additionally, non-response to a legal notice by the Counsel of the applicant’s has also been cited as a ground for the contempt.

4.1 In course of the oral submissions, Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha, the learned counsel for the applicant would draw our attention to the copy of the minutes of the Equivalence Committee enclosed with the counter-reply as annex R-6 (page-58) and the minutes vide annex A-II (page-21). The learned counsel would also cite the Apex Court’s decision in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. U.O.I. and Ors., [(2012) 1 SCC 273]. Particularly the observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Para-29 would be referred: Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in comploying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism.”

5. In their reply-affidavit the respondents, while offering apologies for the delay in the Equivalence Committee arriving at its findings, have denied about the delay being intentional or with a view to subvert the course of justice. The contentions in the C.P. about the Equivalence Committee’s recommendations in the meeting on 23.04.2010 and the same attaining finality in the meeting on 27.05.2011 have also been rebutted by the respondents. It is their categorical stand that the matter had to be considered by the Equivalence Committee at its various meetings before arriving at the final findings.

5.1 The salient factual submissions made are briefly stated below:-

5.1.1 In compliance to the Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2009, the matter was referred by the NPC to the Equivalence Committee with the questions: (i) whether or not the post and scale of pay of draftsman, NPC stood abolished, and (ii) whether, as a consequence, junior assistants and stenographers below the post and pay scale of draftsman, were entitled to jump up two pay scales under the Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’) Scheme.

5.1.2 The above issues were discussed in the second meeting of Equivalence Committee convened on 08.10.2009. Even though in the said Committee there was a recommendation, that ‘next higher scale for the Assistant and Stenographer may be given to 5000-8000/- instead of Rs.4500-7000/- after ten years in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- under ACP Scheme’; however, the matter needed reconsideration supported by sufficient justification as this was without detailed consideration of the issues referred. Accordingly, with the approval of the Secretary, DIPP it was decided to put up the matter for reconsideration of the Equivalence Committee. Putting a question mark regarding the finality of the recommendations in the aforesaid meeting, it has also been submitted that all the Members had not signed the said minutes and the Government Representative Sh. A. Lakshmanaswamy had in a subsequent communication dated 15.04.2010 (annex R-5) given a conditional consent with the stipulation about the NPC not claiming any non-planned support from the GOI for the proposed revision.

(The enclosed documents reveal that the applicants while referring to the EC Minutes dated 23.04.2010 are referring to these very Minutes.)

5.1.3 On correspondence between the NPC and the DIPP, during which period there was a change in the Membership of the EC, the matter was again considered in the Equivalence Committee Meeting on 27.05.2011. Reviewing the 08.10.2009 recommendations, the view taken was that in view of the financial liabilities, it may not be possible to implement the recommendations of the previous Equivalence Committee Meeting with retrospective effect i.e. from 01.01.1998 with or without notional benefit. However, prospective implementation from the date of the order could be considered subject to its not being in conflict with the Government orders regarding implementation of Sixth C.P.C. regarding the new M.A.C.P. Scheme (annex A-2).

5.1.4 Once again the matter had figured in the EC Minutes on 01.09.2011 (annex R-2). The following was resolved:

“After detailed deliberations, the Equivalence Committee has resolved that the proposal by the equivalence committee to grant Rs.5000-Rs.8000 in place of Rs.4500-Rs.7000 is not justifiable.

NPC Scheme is only to grant next higher scale and not to make any jump over and beyond the next higher scale for fixation of scale.

The post of draftsman and scale of draftsman continues to exist and may be filled up in future depending upon requirements.

Government of India MACP Scheme which approved by Governing Body of NPC for NPC Employees also mandate that only one stepping of pay scale is to be done to the next grade pay.”

5.1.5 The findings of the Equivalence Committee have been notified by the NPC to the Chairman, NPC and the Secretary DIPP vide the letter dated 30.01.2012 (annex R-3). This, inter alia, mentions as under:-

“With the above observations, the Equivalence Committee has decided not to concur the contentions of the Employees Association for granting the benefit of next higher scale to Group-C employees by abolition of scale. An order will be issued accordingly in due course of time to effect the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee.”

5.1.6 It is also submitted that the matter is to be placed before the next meeting of the Governing Body for the final decision. In the meanwhile an Administrative Instruction No. 746 dated 09.03.2012 has been issued (annex R-3A). The relevant extracts are as below:-

“As per the directives of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Equivalence Committee have submitted its recommendations on the above subject.

The Equivalence Committee has recommended that the proposal of grant of Rs. 5000-8000 in place of Rs.4500-7000 is not justified. Accordingly, the stipulations of the earlier A.I. No.704 dated 12.7.2007 will continue to be in existence.

The acceptance of the recommendations of Equivalence Committee as above will be placed for approval to the next Governing Body meeting.

This issues with the approval of the competent authority.”

5.2 Shri A.S. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as the post of Secretary, DIPP is presently vacant; the respondents are constrained from convening the meeting of GB forthwith. However, as soon as the post is filled, the meeting would be convened and final decision taken.

5.3 In their reply-affidavit the respondents have also rebutted the contentions raised in the C.P. Para-2D about the directions of the Tribunal for implementing the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee without any reference to the Court. Besides, the para-wise reply also explains the reasons and the circumstances for alleged non-response to the legal notice.

6. Having carefully considered the respective submissions and the material on record, we do not find the present C.P. as tenable. The reasons being: (i) the Tribunal’s directions in the T.A. 99/2009 were limited in nature i.e. after considering the contentions raised by the Association to come out with their findings on the subject; (ii) Contrary to the contention in the C.P. no direction had been issued in respect of the final implementation about the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee. However, as revealed from the records, this is to be in accordance with the Rules and the Procedures and with the final approval of the Governing Body; (iii) the contention of the applicants about a final recommendation having been made in the EC Minutes on 23.04.2010 read with 27.05.2011 have not found to be borne out by the facts submitted before us. These minutes cited are a part of the process. The final view is found to have been taken in the EC Minutes on 01.09.2011; (iv) the final findings have been supported by reasons. Surely, as there were no directions by the Tribunal about the ‘nature of the findings’, the factum of their not being in favour of the applicants cannot be construed as contumacious; (v) the respondents have been able to explain the circumstances under which the matter needed reconsideration in several meetings of the Equivalence Committee. They have also been able to explain the delay in the process. From the submissions made by the respondents it is very clear that they cannot be held guilty either of lethargy or of un-explained official delay or of inaction. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court being relied by the learned counsel for the applicant is not found to be lending any support to the C.P.

6.1 In a catena of judgments, the settled position of law has been about extreme circumspection in exercise of the powers under the Contempt jurisdiction. In its judgment in Security Finance (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. DATTARAYA RAGHAV AGGE and ORS., AIR 1970 SC 720 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed ‘Every Act cannot be a defiance or willful negligence of the Court’s order. Any act which is intentional, deliberate and has a character of disrespect with malafides is a contumacious disobedience.’ Again, in Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram, 2002(1) SCC 766 while dealing with Section-13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed:-

“10. Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence "unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice" (emphasis supplied).

7. Resultantly, we dispose this Contempt Petition by directing the respondents to convene a meeting of the GB to take a final decision on the subject, at the earliest possible, and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The C.P. is closed and notices discharged.