STATE OF M P Vs. V V ASHTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Madhya Pradesh, the original petitioner in the Special Leave Petition, has renewed its prayer for Stay. In the above said Special Leave Petition, a notice is already issued on the limited point as to whether any direction can be issued in a proceeding arising out of contempt. The impugned order in the Special Leave Petition is passed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the contempt jurisdiction on a petition having been filed before him by the 30 school teachers complaining of the non-compliance of Order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000. The Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000 had observed as under:

(2.) It appears that these arrears were paid. The State Government paid all its liabilities even as per the Vth Pay Commission, starting from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000, however, thereafter, the State Government did not pay as per the Vth Pay Commission, and the teachers of the private- aided institutions got their old pay only, that too at the rate of 50% as ordered by this Court in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002. After considering in details the subsequent orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Division Bench, which had attained finality by the orders dated 27.1.2006 and 9.2.2007 passed by this Court, the Learned Judge came to the conclusion that the teachers were entitled to get the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission since the question of benefits of Vth Pay Commission had attained the finality before this Court. The Learned Judge, dealing with the contempt matter, therefore, ordered to make payment of the 50% of the amount calculated on the grant-in-aid after extending the benefit of the Vth Pay Commission.

(3.) Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, pointed out that the question of non-entitlement of the Vth Pay Commission benefits on the part of the teachers, could not have been wrecked up by the State, particularly, in the wake of the fact that the Writ Petition in their behalf was allowed, and the said judgment was confirmed in the LPA, and the stay was refused by this Court. Dr. Dhawan pointed out that even otherwise, it would be unfair to deprive the teachers of the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission, particularly, in the wake of the fact that they were being paid only 50% of the amount, in view of the orders passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 8534 of 2002 State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Sharique Ali and Ors., wherein the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holding the Adhiniyams to be constitutional invalid, was pending.