SIRAJUDIN Vs. S.K. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners for the alleged deliberate disobedience committed by the respondents of the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposing of the writ petition vide the order dated 18.03.2011 with the following directions while disposing of the writ petition No.124/2009: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was directed to be paid 'consequential benefits' as Mechanical (Instrument Repair) in the order of this Court, quoted above, however, the petitioner claimed the pay scale payable to the Technician, a higher post than that of Mechanical (Instrument Repair). This bifurcation of the two cadres appears to have been made in the year 1983 and vide Page 18 of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the earlier pay scale of 120-240, which was equivalent to 370-590 as per Schedule-I of Gazette Notification dated 07.12.1976, the said pay scale for the Technician was revised to 500- 860 vide Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983 (P. 18 of the compilation), in which the cadre of Mechanical (Instrument Repair) was at Serial No.8 with the old pay scale of 295- 500, which was revised to 420-740 as against that of the Technician, which was equivalent with the pay Scale of 370-590, was revised to 500-860. He further submitted that since the petitioner was promoted as Technician in the year 1990 only, much-after 1983 and thereafter he was paid the regular pay scale of Technician, however, prior to 1990 he could not be paid such pay scale of Technician as per the revised pay scale in the Rules of 1983 but he was duly paid the revised pay scale of Mechanical (Instrument Repair), which was 420- 740 and, therefore, he submits that the order passed by this Court stood complied with in its letter and spirit and, so also, in pursuance of interim order of this Court dated 06.12.2012, revised order has been passed and pay fixation has been made at the end of the respondents. Therefore, the present contempt petition deserves to be dismissed.