Dharamvir Singh vs Shri Rajiv Mehrishi

2025 INSC 224 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 768 of 2019)

DHARAMVIR SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SHRI RAJIV MEHRISHI AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appellant has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th June 2018

passed by the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in

Contempt Case (C) No. 21 of 2017, thereby dismissing the

contempt petition filed by the present appellant.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are

Signature Not Verified as under:

Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.02.15 16:34:02 IST Reason:

3.1. The appellant joined the services with the respondent(s)

in 1981 as a Rifleman/Nursing Assistant having the rank of

1 Sepoy and he was promoted to the post of Draughtsman in

1983.

3.2. The respondent came up with a policy document dated

19th/13th March 1984, which specified that candidates were

required to have the same qualification as Draughtsman of

Central Public Works Department to be entitled for a revised

pay-scale. However, by further amendment of the said policy

on 19th October 1994, the requirement of the requisite

qualification was changed to minimum experience in the

cadre. As per the said policy, once the Draughtsman was

placed in the regular pay-scale, further promotion would be

made against the available vacancy in higher grade and in

accordance with the normal eligibility criteria laid down in

the recruitment rules. As per the said policy, though the

notional benefit was given from 13th May 1982, the actual

benefit was to be given from 1st November 1983. The said

policy also provided that the minimum period of service for

placement from the post carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 1400-

2300/- to Rs. 1600-2660/- was four years.

3.3. Since the appellant was not granted the said benefit as

per the amendment, the appellant approached the High

2 Court of Gauhati, Shillong Bench by way of WP (C) No. (SH)

283 of 2009.

3.4. The said petition came to be allowed by the order dated

27th November 2012.

3.5. Noting that the said policy has notified on 19th March

1984, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that

once the appellant had completed four years of service, he

was entitled to revise pay-scale with effect from the date on

which he gets completed the four years of service. However, it

appears that the Court observed that the appellant had

completed four years of service in the year 1997.

3.6. Since, there was an obvious error, the appellant filed a

Review Petition No. (SH) 1 of 2013. The said petition was also

allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide

order dated 8th February 2013.

3.7. In the said order, the Court observed that the year

mentioned in the order is to be read as ‘1997’ instead of

‘1987’.

3.8. The order allowing the writ petition was challenged by

the respondent(s) in an appeal before the Division Bench of

the High Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated

3 16th December 2014. The special leave petition challenging

the same was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated

4th May 2017.

3.9. Alleging non-compliance of the direction issued by the

High Court, the appellant filed a contempt petition before the

High Court and the same was dismissed by way of the

impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

4. We have heard Shri R. Shamshad, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri

Brijender Chahar, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. No doubt that the High Court was justified in

dismissing the contempt petition, inasmuch as in a technical

sense, there was no contempt committed by the

respondent(s). The High Court, in the first order though

noted that the appellant was initially appointed in 1983 and

he would be entitled to the revised pay-scale mentioned in

the policy of 1994, erroneously, observed that the period of

four years was completed in 1997.

6. For correcting the said order, a review petition was filed

before the High Court. The High court found merit in the

4 review petition. The High Court, however, again passed the

order with the same mistake. Though it was observed that

the period of four years was to be completed in the year

1987, the order mistakenly stated the year as ‘1997’.

7. It is apparent that both the orders suffered from

typographical errors. The appellant, who was otherwise

entitled to the revised pay-scale from 1987, cannot be denied

the same on account of some technicality.

8. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal and direct the

respondent(s) to revise the pay-scale of the appellant from

19th August 1987. The arrears shall be paid to the appellant

along with an interest of 6 per cent within a period of three

months from today.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

............................................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 12, 2025.

5