APARNA K Vs. G R C REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Contempt of Court Cases are before us, pursuant to a reference order dated 27.1.2016 of the learned Single Judge, who found that the directions in the common judgment dated 24.11.2014 in W.P. (C).Nos.29492/2012 and 1806/2013 had not been effectively complied with by the respondents through the passing of Annexures A5 and A7 orders. The issue that arose in the writ petitions was essentially with regard to the anomaly that resulted consequent to the pay scale that was extended by the respondent National Institute of Technology, to the writ petitioners on the one hand and other Lecturers who, like the petitioners, were re-designated as Assistant Professors, but pursuant to Ext.P5 Notification for selection and appointment of Lecturers. The learned Single Judge noted that, although the respondent Institute had furnished certain reasons in the affidavit, justifying the grant of a higher pay to the other Assistant Professors, namely, Dr. Malladi P. Pavan Kumar as also Dr. R. Manu, the said justification could not be legally sustained, since the said persons were not found eligible for the benefit contemplated under Ext.R2(A) recommendations of the Selection Committee, produced by the respondents along with their counter affidavit. It was under these circumstances that the learned Single Judge directed the respondent Institute to reconsider the claim of the writ petitioners in the light of the observations in the judgment, as also to consider the eligibility of the writ petitioners to the benefits flowing from Ext.R2(A) Selection Committee proceedings, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was further made clear that the benefits flowing from the said exercise had to be disbursed to the writ petitioners without delay.

(2.) Consequent to the disposal of the writ petitions, the respondent Institute proceeded to pass two orders, namely, Annexure A5 dated 16.3.2015 (which was subsequently withdrawn taking note of the objections raised by the writ petitioners) and thereafter, Annexure A7 order dated 28.7.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for parity in pay. On receipt of Annexure A7 order, the writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge through the aforementioned Contempt of Court Cases alleging that, through the passing of Annexure A7 order, the respondent Institute had breached the directions in the judgment dated 24.11.2014.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, on a prima facie consideration of the averments in the Contempt of Court cases, found that the respondents have not complied with the directions in the judgment which required the respondents to consider the issue of extending the pay and benefits granted to Dr. Malladi P. Pavan Kumar, to the writ petitioners, and further, the aspect of extending the benefits in Ext.R2(A) proceedings of the Selection Committee, as in the case of Dr. R. Manu, had also not been considered by the respondent Institute. The matters were therefore referred before us by the learned Single Judge.