ARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. JYOTI PRASANNA DAS THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE twelve appeals have been referred to the full Bench in terms of Rule 1, Chapter VII of Part II of the Appellate Side Rules, as the referring Bench found itself unable to agree with the views of the earlier Division Bench of this Court. The point on which the difference arose related to the necessity of personal service of a mandatory order as distinct from prohibitory order. In the order of reference, the Division Bench, however, took note of an admitted factual position that the order, in the present case, was not personally served upon the contemnors though they knew and were fully aware of the said order and took all possible legal and administrative steps to have the said order set aside and/or to make it infructuous. Since all the appeals have been referred to us, all points, including the above noted admitted factual position, have been treated as open for arguments by us.

(2.) THE origin of the entire dispute may be traced to . notification issued by the State Government, dated February 23, 1983, whereby the employees of different Universities of West Bengal were proposed to b granted further additional dearness allowance like their counter -parts in Government employment at the rate i absolute amounts as was admissible to the Government employees on corresponding basic pay in terms o memorandum No. 11930 -F date 23.11.82 in additions it existing dearness allowance/interim dearness allowance. We have purposely underlined the above portions as the dispute between the parties can be said to have its foundation in the interpretation of the word: underlined above. From this Memorandum two other clauses are required to be quoted as follows: If the existing total D.A. elements (prior to 1.11.82 be in excess of the total D.A. element (prior to 1.11.82) of corresponding State Govt, employees such excess should be adjusted against the amount of further A.D.A. admissible. The basic pay as mentioned above shall be the grade pay, drawn by the employees in their respective revised scales of pay and shall not include Special Pay, Dearness Pay, Personal Pay, Administrative Pay and any other categories of Pay, if any, an except grade pay, provided that in the case of employees who have not opted for revised scales of. pay, the basic pay will be grade pay plus Dearness Allowance as was being drawn by them on 31.3.70. The said Memorandum was followed by another, dated April 4, 1983, which enclosed a ready reckoner indicating the amounts of further Additional Dearness Allowance payable to the University employees, in terms of the earlier Memorandum. As the amounts, as shown in the ready reckoner, issued by the Government, were found by the University employees to be less than the amounts to which they thought themselves to but entitled, a number of writ applications were moved on which civil orders were issued and such civil order ultimately, had been heard out and disposed of, on September 3, 1984 by Mrs. P. Khastagir, J., inter alia, quashing the ready reckoner on the grounds that there has no proper authentication of the said document, which had been issued under the signature of the Dy. secretary, Education Department and not in the names f the Governor; that the ready reckoner could not modify or take away the amounts payable to the University employees under the original memorandum y mis -interpreting the terms 'basic pay now drawn"; IInd thirdly because the term 'absolute amounts' used n the said Memorandum, dated February 23, 1993, leant complete unconditional amount. Against the said Term, appeals were preferred before the Division Bench IInd in connection therewith applications for stay had also been preferred. The Appeal Court, by its order lasted September 11, 1984, after finding that the propriety of quashing of the ready reckoner was to be decided at the final hearing of the appeal, directed the Appellants to pay further dearness allowance to non -teaching University employees, in accordance with. the Memorandum, dated February 23, 1983. It appears from record that after the disposal of the connected stay applications, in the manner as mentioned above, the present Appellants, by' a further Memorandum dated September 12, 1984, withdrew the" abovementioned Memorandum, dated February 23, 1983, with immediate effect, and, by a simultaneous Memorandum of the ;amending, declared the entitlement of the University employees to further A.D.A. in correspondence to the able given therein with effect from November i, 1982, e., the date since when, the terms of the withdrawn Memorandum, further A.D.A. had been sanctioned and included therein a table, showing the amounts payable

(3.) CORDING to the grade pay or basic pay. It is pertinent note that the amounts of further A.D.A., as mentioned A the said Memorandum, were identical amounts as mentioned in the Memorandum relating to the Government employee, indicating also the conditions, which were verbatim re -production, more or less, of what went embodied in the withdrawn Memorandum. This newly; issued Memoranda constitute the subject matters o challenge in the instant writ proceedings on which Rule: were issued on September 26, 1984 by a learned Singh Judge of this Court.