Bahadur Singh vs Jaspreet Kaur Talwar
- Neutral2022 INSC 828
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court order directs payment of the "minimum of the pay" or equivalent remuneration but does not expressly enumerate all permissible components, and a subsequent authoritative pronouncement of that same court clarifies and specifies which allowances form part of such entitlement, the clarified definition governs the scope of compliance with the original order; and the State is bound to make payment of those allowances as so clarified, even though not explicitly stated in the earlier order itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.399 OF 2020 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25389 OF 2011
BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JASPREET KAUR TALWAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 OF 2020 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.32267 OF 2011
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.401 OF 2020 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.33885 OF 2011
O R D E R
1. We have heard Mr. Ajay Bansal, learned Advocate in support
of the contempt petitions and Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned
Advocate for the State.
2. The instant Contempt Petitions arise out of the Order dated
10.01.2018 passed by this Court disposing of Special Leave
Petition preferred by the Principal Secretary, Government of
Punjab, PWD Public Health & Others, in terms of the judgment Signature Not Verified
rendered by this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2022.08.23 19:54:00 IST Reason:
Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148.
2
3. Paragraph 55 of the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) was to
the following effect:
“55. In view of all our above conclusions, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , dated 11-11-2011, is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 125] is also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13009], with the modification that the employees concerned would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them.”
4. Notably, the expression “pay” was considered by this Court
in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.699-700 of 2015, Tej Singh and
Others v. Sarvesh Kaushal and Ors., arising out of decision
dated 11.05.2015 in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso. v.
State of H.P. & Others and connected matters, Civil Appeal
No.2759 of 2015 Etc. In its order dated 04.05.2016 passed in
said Contempt Petitions, this Court observed:
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the expression “minimum of the pay” mentioned in paragraph 22 is intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay. This is in the context of the view expressed by this Court denying regular appointments to the petitioners, while taking into consideration 3
the fact that the services of the Home Guards are used during an emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel.
Accordingly, we make it clear that the word “minimum of the pay” used in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2015 means the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowances + washing allowance.”
5. It is a matter of record that so far as the basic pay is
concerned, the contempt petitioners have been paid the
requisite amounts. However, it is submitted that the amounts
towards Dearness Allowance as was accepted by this Court in its
order dated 04.05.2016 have not been made over to the contempt
petitioners.
6. We see force in the submissions made on behalf of the
contempt petitioners.
7. It is, therefore, directed that the amounts payable to all
the contempt petitioners towards Dearness Allowance shall be
made over to them within six weeks from today.
8. It is also projected that the emoluments made over to the
contempt petitioners are in respect of only 38 months and not
for the entirety of the period.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned Advocate assures the Court
that the matter will be looked into and appropriate relief on
that front, if the case is made out, shall be granted. 4
9. The instant contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of.
............................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
............................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
............................J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
New Delhi, August 16, 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free