Non-Compliance Of Assurance Given In Contempt Proceedings: Supreme Court Imposes Rupees One Lakh Fine On Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

Unimpressed by the Ministry's explanation in the compliance affidavit and blaming the Ministry for being unable to avail his promotion earlier, the division bench of Justice(s) DY Chandrachud and MR Shah remarked that,

"We are unimpressed by this explanation in the compliance affidavit. The reason why the petitioner could not avail of his promotion earlier was due to the fault of the authorities. The judgment of the Tribunal was delivered on 8th November, 2000. There was no stay of the decision of the Tribunal or of the High Court affirming it. Consequently, it is the failure of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to implement the binding judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court and eventually of this Court that has led to the present situation. Even after the judgment of this Court, no steps were taken.

As a result, contempt proceedings had to be instituted which were disposed of on the assurance of the ASG who appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that the directions would be complied with. Now, this Miscellaneous Application has been filed for a revival of the contempt proceedings because of non-compliance. There is a clear non-compliance with the directions of this Court."

The Bench also observed as follows:

"The grant of notional promotions to a person in service does not effectuate compliance. Arrears of pay have to be paid over. Had there been compliance with the judgments of the Tribunal and High Court (which have been confirmed by this Court), the petitioner would have received promotion earlier. The petitioner has been deprived of this due to the delay of the respondents."

While directing the fine to be paid over to the National Legal Services Authority within four weeks to be recovered from the officers responsible for compliance, the Court also directed to pay the petitioner actual benefits including arrears of salary with effect from the date on which upgradation or promotion was granted to him within a period of one month from the date of order with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrears of salary.

The bench in the present matter was hearing a plea filed by a departmental candidate whom while continuing to be in service approached the Court for the revival of contempt proceedings with the grievance that the Ministry had not complied with the Top Court's order dated September 26, 2018.

Litigious Chain

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the following upgradations, promotions were granted to the petitioner but no arrears of salary were granted:

(i) On 12 December 2019, from Junior Time Scale to Senior Time Scale (with effect from 29 June 1998);

(ii) On 6 January 2020, to the Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) (with effect from 1 January 2006); and

(iii) On 4 March 2020, from Junior Administrative Grade to Senior Administrative Grade (with effect from 1 April 2007).

It was also his contention that para 10(ii) of the directions in the Top Court's judgment dated 26 September 2018 envisaged that in the case of employees who have retired, a notional pay fixation was to be carried out and the retiral benefits, including pension, were to be determined on that basis. However, the petitioner's case did not fall within paragraph 10(ii) of the directions of this Court which concern only retired employees.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in its compliance affidavit relied on an OM dated 10 April, 1989 to buttress the petitioner's plea that the petitioner was granted full pay scale with pay fixation for JAG (SG) on a notional basis with effect from 1 April 2007 in PB-4 Scale of Rs 37400 – 67000 with Grade Pay of 8700. It was also their contention that this pay fixation was made notional up to 11 March 2020 on the ground that the petitioner had not worked on the previous post, till date and with effect from 12 March 2020, it was ordered that he would draw salary on a regular basis.

Background

On September 26, 2018, the Top Court in Union of India v. E Krishna Rao while affirming the Tribunal's judgment wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed the Government to provide departmental candidates all benefits of service and to consider their cases for promotions in accordance with Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990 had clarified that:

(i) promotions that have already been affected and the existing seniority shall not be affected;

(ii) in the case of employees who have retired, a notional pay fixation shall be carried out and retiral benefits, including pension, if any, shall be determined on that basis; and

(iii) individual cases for promotion would be considered against vacancies available, keeping seniority in view.

Contempt proceedings were initiated for non-compliance with the order dated September 26, 2018, and disposed of on November 29, 2019, in terms of the following order with the liberty to apply for a revival of the same in the event it was necessary to do so in future :

"Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General states that a letter has been addressed today [29 November 2019] by the Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to the Union Public Service Commission forwarding a proposal for convening a limited Review DPC for the years 2003-04 to 2007-08 for considering three Senior Time Scale officers for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade of Programme Management Cadre of IB(P)S in the Directorate General of Doordarshan."

"Since steps have been initiated now, we are of the view that the authorities have taken steps to comply with the judgment and order passed by this Court on 26 September 2018. We direct that all steps for implementing the judgment and order of this Court dated 26 September 2018 shall be completed within a period of three months from today. All consequential steps required to be initiated in terms of the judgment and order of this Court shall also be initiated within a period of one month from today and completed within three months."

Senior Counsel KK Rai appeared for the petitioner and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the Union of India.

Case Title: Sudhanshu Ranjan v. Amit Khare| Miscellaneous Application No 1143 of 2021 in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 405-407 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos 11948-11950 of 2016

Click Here To Read/ Download Order