1. The petitioner is the widow of an employee, who died on 9.11.2005. The husband of the petitioner was drawing corresponding pay on the basis of Rs.950/- which was granted to him by office order No.1024/93, which was passed in the year 1993 on his completion of 10 years' service as a semi-skilled daily wager. After the death of her husband, petitioner received a recovery order dated 13.3.2006 calling upon her to deposit a sum of Rs.104979/- on account of incorrect pay scale given to her husband which is under challenge in this petition by the widow of the deceased employee of the Government. Initially, when the recovery was ordered, the widow of the deceased employee had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.9206 of 2006 which was decided by this Court (Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) by judgment and order dated 23.11.2006. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under.
......Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 13.3.2006 and 23.3.2006 are set aside on the ground that the same are violative of the principles of natural justice. However, it is open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Respondents are directed to keep in view and consider the decision of the apex court reported in 2006 (10) SCALE page 89 and decide as to whether the order of recovery could be issued against the petitioner herein or not in view of the principles laid down by the apex court in the said decision. Petitioner shall supply copy of the said decision of apex court reported in 2006 (10) SCALE page 89 to the respondents along with the copy of this order. Meanwhile, after keeping aside the amount mentioned in order dated 13.3.2006 and 23.3.2006, Respondents are directed to pay rest of the amount which is not in dispute and is legally due and payable to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.
(Emphasis supplied).
2. As was expected, this direction of paying undisputed amount within one month was not complied with and, therefore, the widow had to again approach this Court by filing Misc. Civil Application No.680 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No.9206 of 2006 which came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench passed the following order on 4.7.2007 while disposing of Misc. Civil Application No.680 of 2007.
.... Over and above, Mr.Raval has assured that yet State has to pay Rs.24,632/- and that will be paid within a month from today. (Emphasis supplied).
3. It is after the disposal of that Misc. Civil Application on 4.7.2007, we are on 15.9.2010. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner states that the authorities have not found time to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9206 of 2006 till date wherein the authorities were asked to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the authorities are awaiting for an auspicious event to happen and then to comply with the orders of this Court.
4. It is settled position of law that when the specific direction is given and the said direction is not complied with, it amounts to 'contempt of the Court'. The matter is adjourned to 1.10.2010 to enable the authorities to pass appropriate order as per the direction of this Court failing which the Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar shall remain personally present before this Court to answer as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated.
Copy of this order be made available to learned AGP Ms.Manisha Narsinghani for its onward compliance. In addition to that, direct service is permitted.
(Ravi R.Tripathi,J) pathan Top