Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 17.03.2021 passed in Writ A No.56926 of 2017. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"7. In light of the stand taken by the respondents before this Court, it would be appropriate to observe that the Corporation would not be justified in denying equal terms to physically disabled employees, while granting service benefits including benefits of promotional pay scale, under the ACP scheme. No higher standard of their working would otherwise be warranted, as fixing of any higher standard for physically disabled persons in the matter of grant of promotional pay scale would be inconsistent with Section 47 of the Act of 1995. The circular dated 31.8.2012, therefore, is read down as laying down norm for grant of promotional pay scale under the ACP scheme to physically disabled employees also at par with other employees of the Corporation. This observation would be warranted in view of the specific stand taken by the counsel for the Corporation and the mandate of Section 47 of the Act of 1995.
8. Petitioner has also challenged the order of the Regional Manager of the Corporation dated 18.4.2017, insofar as the benefit of promotional pay scale has been denied to petitioner only on the ground that he superannuated prior to 1.9.2012, which was the date fixed for grant of promotional pay scale to physically disabled employees.
9. It is admitted on record that benefit of promotional pay scale has been granted to other employees of the Corporation w.e.f. 13.1.2010. Once that be so, a different date cannot be fixed for the purposes of grant of promotional pay scale to the physically disabled employees. It is otherwise admitted that on the date when the ACP scheme got enforced in the Corporation the petitioner was in employment. The Corporation, therefore, would not be justified in declining grant of promotional pay scale to petitioner only on the ground that such benefit was not admissible to physically disabled employees retiring prior to 1.9.2012. In such circumstances, the order dated 18.4.2017, insofar as it denies benefit of promotional pay scale to petitioner cannot be sustained and is set aside.
9. Matter stands remitted to the Corporation for passing a fresh order, keeping in view the above observations, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. All consequential benefits would be extended to petitioner, within a further period of six weeks, thereafter.
10. Petitioner has also challenged the action of respondents in denying benefit of gratuity for the period of petitioner's temporary working from 1978 to 1981. Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which regulates payment of gratuity to the employees of the Corporation clearly includes temporary working also for payment of gratuity. Since the petitioner has worked from 1978 onwards in the Corporation, which is also not in dispute, therefore, the period of petitioner's working from 1978 to 1981 cannot be excluded for the purposes of determination of gratuity payable to writ petitioner. The respondents, therefore, shall re-calculate the gratuity payable to petitioner, keeping in view the observations made above and also by this Court in Writ-C No. 6971 of 2017 (U.P.S.R.T.C. through its R.M. Vikasnagar Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 28.8.2019, within a period of two months.
11. Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed. No order is, however, passed as to costs. "
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court affidavit of compliance was filed by the opposite party. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of compliance that the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with and decision has been taken on 21.08.2021, copy of which is appended as annexure 1 to the affidavit, therefore, no cause of action remained survive.
In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed. However, in case applicant is still aggrieved it is open for the applicant to approach the appropriate forum if so advised.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi