KANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(2.) This is a petition for contempt alleging non compliance of the order dated 19.4.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.1164 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents, including Siddhu Kanu Murmu University, Dumka wherein he was claiming payment towards arrears of difference of pay on the basis of UGC pay scale. The learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the representation in regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and it was further directed that if the amount claimed by the petitioner was found payable, the same should be paid to him and in the event of failure to do so, he would be entitled for a further sum by way of interest.

(2.) The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the controversy as to whether the payment could be released to only some of the teachers or all and what would be the mode and manner of payment i.e. whether the entire arrears were to be paid in one go or in parts was a matter to be decided by the Principal Bench which had disposed of the petitioners writ petition. As the said controversy has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge since the petitioner was diverted to the University by way of a direction to file a representation, the question as to how the payment will be made to the petitioner in absence of release of the fund by the UGC and Central Government , even though he may be entitled for the same, ultimately is still enmeshed in the legal wrangle , which cannot be sorted out by way of a petition for contempt as it hardly needs to be mentioned that the contempt proceeding has an extremely limited scope and, therefore, by way of a petition for contempt, the main controversy as to how the payment at the rate of UGC scale is to be released in favour of the petitioner or other similarly situated person , cannot be addressed by way of a contempt proceeding. The case for contempt, therefore, against the University and the respondent -State is not made out at this stage, in view of the fact that the University Grants Commission has not released the entire payment, which is to be disbursed to the eligible teachers to receive the salary on the basis of UGC scale. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fund has , in fact, been released in favour of the State but the same is not being disbursed in a firm and uniform way. As already stated, this cannot be allowed to be agitated by way of a petition for contempt.

(3.) This contempt petition, therefore, cannot be held maintainable and hence is dismissed at this stage. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a petition for review before the learned Single Judge where he would be at liberty to explain as to what should have been the mode and manner for payment in case the petitioner was held eligible for the payment in the wake of the fact that the Central Government and the University Grants Commission has not released the entire payment and if the payments which were released in favour of the University were selectively disbursed and the disbursement was not made by applying a uniform yardstick , the said question also obviously will have to be addressed before the Principal Bench by way of a review petition.