advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, May 18, 2014

principles of Resjudicata- Contempt of court - Service matter - In compliance of Apex court judgment a Resolution merging the cadre of BSES with BES was issued on 07.07.2006 and the BSES teachers were granted benefits of the merger, like enhancement of payscale, promotion etc. At this stage, a writ petition was filed by BES Association (BESA) challenging the merger. - A single judge of the High Court allowed it vide judgment dated 31.10.2007, which was affirmed by a Division Bench on 21.05.2010. - Govt. Recalled the merger and recalled the benefits immediately after the orders of single judge - This judgment was challenged before this Court by filing SLP.- implementation of court order - instead of getting clarity from Apex court - started second round of litigation - High court also ignored the principles of Resjudicata and Unveiled curtains for second round of litigation - Apex court gave some directions and directed to reopen this contempt petition on failure of the Govt. in implementation = Bihar State Govt. Sec. Scl. Teachers Assn. ….Petitioner(s) Versus Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors. ….Respondent(s) = 2014 ( May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41520

  principles of Resjudicata- Contempt of court - Service matter - In compliance of Apex court judgment a Resolution  merging the cadre of BSES with BES  was  issued  on  07.07.2006  and  the  BSES teachers were granted benefits  of  the  merger,  like  enhancement  of payscale, promotion etc.  At this stage, a writ petition was  filed  by BES Association (BESA) challenging the merger. - A single judge  of  the High Court  allowed  it  vide  judgment  dated  31.10.2007,  which  was affirmed  by  a  Division  Bench  on  21.05.2010. - Govt. Recalled the merger and recalled the benefits immediately after the orders of single judge - This  judgment  was challenged before this Court by filing SLP.- implementation of court order - instead of getting clarity from Apex court - started second round of litigation - High court also ignored the principles of Resjudicata  and Unveiled curtains for second round of litigation - Apex court gave some directions and directed to reopen this contempt petition on failure of the Govt. in implementation =  

The conclusive  portion  of  the  detailed  judgment  dated  23.11.2012
     reflects raison d’etre for  arriving  at  such  a  conclusion  and  the
     precise nature thereof.  We, therefore, reproduce  the  same  hereunder
     for the sake of further discussion:
“44.  This entire discussion leads us  to  only  one  conclusion
           that the learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  the  petition  CWJC
           No.10091/2006, which began the third round of  litigation  filed
           on behalf of the Bihar Education  Service  Association,  had  no
           business to re-open the entire controversy, even otherwise.  The
           State Govt. had already passed  a  resolution  dated  07.07.2006
           after the order of this Court dated 19.04.2006.  While examining
           the legality of that resolution (which was defended by the State
           Govt. at this stage before the learned Single Judge) the  entire
           controversy was once again gone into.  The law  of  finality  of
           decisions which is enshrined in the principle of res-judicata or
           principles analogous thereto,  does  not  permit  any  such  re-
           examination, and the learned Judge clearly failed  to  recognize
           the same.

           45.  For the reasons stated above, these appeals (arising out of
           SLP Nos.26675-76 of 2010) are allowed.  The judgment  and  order
           passed by  the  Division  Bench  of  Patna  High  Court  in  LPA
           No.4182009 and other LPAs dated  21.05.2010,  and  that  of  the
           learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2007 in CWJC  No.100912006  are
           set-aside and  the  said  Writ  Petition  is  hereby  dismissed.
           Consequently the notification dated 19.11.2007  issued  pursuant
           to the decision of the Single Judge will also stand quashed  and
           set-aside.  The  State  Govt.  Resolution  dated  07.07.2006  is
           upheld.  The state  shall  proceed  to  act  accordingly.   I.A.
           Nos.19-202011 are dismissed.  As stated by Mr. Patwalia, learned
           senior counsel for the  appellants,  the  appellants  no  longer
           press  for  the  action  for  contempt  arising  out   of   CWJC
           No.86792002.  Contempt  Petiton  Nos.  386-387/2011,  will  also
           accordingly stand disposed of, as not pressed.

           46.  The attitude of the State Govt. in the  matter  has  caused
           unnecessary anxiety to a large number of  teachers.   The  State
           Govt. must realize that in a country  where  there  is  no  much
           illiteracy  and  where  there  are  a  large  number  of   first
           generation students, the  role  of  the  primary  and  secondary
           teachers is very important.  They have to be treated  honourably
           and given appropriate pay  and  chances  of  promotion.   It  is
           certainly not expected of the State Govt. to drag  them  to  the
           Court in litigation for years together.

           47.  Though the appeals stand disposed of as above, we do record
           our strong displeasure for the manner  in  which  the  State  of
           Bihar kept on changing its stand from time to time.  This is not
           expected from the State Govt.  The manner in which  the  learned
           Single Judge proceeded with the Writ  Petition  No.1009/2006  to
           reopen the entire controversy, and also the  Division  Bench  in
           LPA No.418/2003 in approving that  approach  is  also  far  from
           satisfactory.  If the orders passed by this Court were not clear
           to the State  Govt.  or  any  party,  it  could  have  certainly
           approached this Court for the  clarification  thereof.   But  it
           could not have setup a contrary plea in a collateral proceeding.
            We do not expect such an approach  from  the  State  Govt.  and
           least from the High Court.  Having stated this, although we have
           expressed out  displeasure  about  the  approach  of  the  State
           Government, we refrain from passing any order as to costs.”=



  We thus, dispose of these Contempt Petitions with the  following
     directions:

           (i)   The combined gradation list issued on 17.8.2007 is revived
           and is to be acted upon  and  implemented  by  the  Respondents/
           Authorities, or

           Suitable amendment in the alternative be made in Rule 27 of 2014
           Rules giving option to the teachers also, as permitted to  other
           sub cadres.

           (ii)  It would be open to the respondents not  to  demote  those
           BES Officers who are holding administrative  assignment  on  the
           higher posts. However, that would not be at the  cost  of  those
           petitioners belonging to teaching sub cadre who, as a result  of
           combined seniority list, have become  senior to BES Officers. We
           leave it to the Government to find whatever solution  they  have
           to deal with this issue.

           (iii) Consequential benefits which may accrue to the petitioners
           shall be accorded to them.

           (iv)  The entire exercise be  done  and  accomplished  within  a
           period of 3 months.

           (v)   On failure on the part of the respondents/  administration
           to take the aforesaid steps, it would be open to the petitioners
           to move an I.A. in these very  Contempt  Petitions  seeking  its
           revival with prayer to proceed further against  the  respondents
           in accordance with law.

       vi) The petitioner shall also be entitled  to  the  costs  of  these
           proceedings, which we fix at Rs. 50,000/-.
     2014 ( May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41520
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, A.K. SIKRI
                                                      REPORTABLE

                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 88-89 OF 2013
                                     IN
                     CIVIL APPEAL No. 8226-8227 of 2012





     Bihar State Govt. Sec. Scl. Teachers Assn.       ….Petitioner(s)




                                   Versus




     Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors.                       ….Respondent(s)





                             J U D G M E N T




     A.K. SIKRI, J.




  1. These contempt proceedings arise out of the judgment  and  order  dated
     23.11.2012 passed by this Court in CA Nos. 8226-8227 of  2012.   Before
     we take note of the exact nature of directions given in  that  judgment
     which according to the petitioners have been flouted contumaciously and
     deliberately, we would like to take note of the history  of  litigation
     culminating in passing of the said judgment.

  2. The petitioner is an Association representing the teachers of the Bihar
     Subordinate Education Service (hereinafter  referred  to  as  BSES  for
     brevity).  They had filed a writ  petition  in  the  Patna  High  Court
     claiming merger  of  their  cadre  with  the  Bihar  Education  Service
     (hereinafter referred to BES  for  brevity).   The  writ  petition  was
     allowed and the LPA and the SLP filed against the same were  dismissed.
     Since the benefits of merger of cadre were  still  not  being  granted,
     another writ petition was filed, which too was allowed and affirmed  in
     LPA.  Although leave was granted in the  SLP  filed  by  the  State  of
     Bihar, ultimately the Civil Appeal was dismissed by the  judgment dated
     19.04.2006 resulting in the outcome in favour of the petitioner.

  3. In compliance of the said judgment of this Court, a Resolution  merging
     the cadre of BSES with BES  was  issued  on  07.07.2006  and  the  BSES
     teachers were granted benefits  of  the  merger,  like  enhancement  of
     payscale, promotion etc.  At this stage, a writ petition was  filed  by
     BES Association (BESA) challenging the merger.  A single judge  of  the
     High Court  allowed  it  vide  judgment  dated  31.10.2007,  which  was
     affirmed  by  a  Division  Bench  on  21.05.2010.   This  judgment  was
     challenged before this Court by filing SLP.

  4. Immediately after the judgment of the learned single judge,  the  State
     Government withdrew the Resolution of  merger  dated  07.07.2006  by  a
     notification dated 19.11.2007 expressly  mentioning  therein  that  the
     same was being issued  in  light  of  the  High  court  judgment  dated
     31.10.2007 and thereby all benefits of merger of cadre were  withdrawn.
     Several  consequential  benefits  had  been  granted  to  the  teachers
     pursuant to the merger by issuing various Resolutions.  These  benefits
     were also withdrawn and in fact a Resolution was passed  by  the  state
     government on 17.01.2008 directing that the teachers would get pay  and
     other benefits, as they were  getting  prior  to  the  merger,  thereby
     nullifying the effect of earlier Resolution of merger dated 7.7.2006.

  5. The Special Leave Petition was granted and appeal was ultimately  heard
     finally.  Eventually this appeal was allowed  by  a  detailed  judgment
     dated 23.11.2012, thereby setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
      This Court also quashed the notification of the State Government dated
     19.11.2007, by which the benefits of merger granted to the teachers had
     been withdrawn.  As a corollary  State  Government’s  Resolution  dated
     07.07.2006 was upheld and restored by  which  the  cadre  of  the  BSES
     teachers, Teaching Branch had been merged with  that  of  BES  and  the
     State Government was directed to act accordingly.

  6. The conclusive  portion  of  the  detailed  judgment  dated  23.11.2012
     reflects raison d’etre for  arriving  at  such  a  conclusion  and  the
     precise nature thereof.  We, therefore, reproduce  the  same  hereunder
     for the sake of further discussion:

           “44.  This entire discussion leads us  to  only  one  conclusion
           that the learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  the  petition  CWJC
           No.10091/2006, which began the third round of  litigation  filed
           on behalf of the Bihar Education  Service  Association,  had  no
           business to re-open the entire controversy, even otherwise.  The
           State Govt. had already passed  a  resolution  dated  07.07.2006
           after the order of this Court dated 19.04.2006.  While examining
           the legality of that resolution (which was defended by the State
           Govt. at this stage before the learned Single Judge) the  entire
           controversy was once again gone into.  The law  of  finality  of
           decisions which is enshrined in the principle of res-judicata or
           principles analogous thereto,  does  not  permit  any  such  re-
           examination, and the learned Judge clearly failed  to  recognize
           the same.

           45.  For the reasons stated above, these appeals (arising out of
           SLP Nos.26675-76 of 2010) are allowed.  The judgment  and  order
           passed by  the  Division  Bench  of  Patna  High  Court  in  LPA
           No.4182009 and other LPAs dated  21.05.2010,  and  that  of  the
           learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2007 in CWJC  No.100912006  are
           set-aside and  the  said  Writ  Petition  is  hereby  dismissed.
           Consequently the notification dated 19.11.2007  issued  pursuant
           to the decision of the Single Judge will also stand quashed  and
           set-aside.  The  State  Govt.  Resolution  dated  07.07.2006  is
           upheld.  The state  shall  proceed  to  act  accordingly.   I.A.
           Nos.19-202011 are dismissed.  As stated by Mr. Patwalia, learned
           senior counsel for the  appellants,  the  appellants  no  longer
           press  for  the  action  for  contempt  arising  out   of   CWJC
           No.86792002.  Contempt  Petiton  Nos.  386-387/2011,  will  also
           accordingly stand disposed of, as not pressed.

           46.  The attitude of the State Govt. in the  matter  has  caused
           unnecessary anxiety to a large number of  teachers.   The  State
           Govt. must realize that in a country  where  there  is  no  much
           illiteracy  and  where  there  are  a  large  number  of   first
           generation students, the  role  of  the  primary  and  secondary
           teachers is very important.  They have to be treated  honourably
           and given appropriate pay  and  chances  of  promotion.   It  is
           certainly not expected of the State Govt. to drag  them  to  the
           Court in litigation for years together.

           47.  Though the appeals stand disposed of as above, we do record
           our strong displeasure for the manner  in  which  the  State  of
           Bihar kept on changing its stand from time to time.  This is not
           expected from the State Govt.  The manner in which  the  learned
           Single Judge proceeded with the Writ  Petition  No.1009/2006  to
           reopen the entire controversy, and also the  Division  Bench  in
           LPA No.418/2003 in approving that  approach  is  also  far  from
           satisfactory.  If the orders passed by this Court were not clear
           to the State  Govt.  or  any  party,  it  could  have  certainly
           approached this Court for the  clarification  thereof.   But  it
           could not have setup a contrary plea in a collateral proceeding.
            We do not expect such an approach  from  the  State  Govt.  and
           least from the High Court.  Having stated this, although we have
           expressed out  displeasure  about  the  approach  of  the  State
           Government, we refrain from passing any order as to costs.”




  7. It is clear from the above that the  Court  took  the  view  that  once
     decision of merger was not only upheld by this  Court  in  its  earlier
     judgment dated 19.04.2006, but thereafter it was even acted upon by the
     State Government by passing Resolution dated 07.07.2006, there  was  no
     reason for the High Court to reopen the matter in a  Writ  Petition  at
     the instance of BES Association. The Court, therefore,  in  categorical
     terms upheld the Resolution dated 07.07.2006 effecting  the  merger  of
     two services namely BSES and BES.  Since this merger was undone by  the
     State Government by passing another Resolution dated  19.11.2007,  this
     latter Resolution was quashed.  The effect of these directions  was  to
     restore status quo ante by reinforcing the position with  the  issuance
     of Resolution merging the two cadres on 07.07.2006 and  conferring  all
     benefits of merger on to the members of the  petitioner's  Association,
     viz. teachers belonging to erstwhile BSES.

  8. According to the Petitioner, after the aforesaid  judgment  was  given,
     several representations  were  made  to  the  State  Government,  on  a
     virtually daily basis, to restore the earlier position consequent  upon
     the merger of the two  cadres  but  it  was  of  no  avail.   In  these
     representations, the Petitioners also called upon the State  Government
     to  give  the  consequential  benefits  granted  pursuant   to   merger
     notification by restoring the same and stated that these benefits would
     include upgradation of  posts,  fixation  of  higher  pay,  payment  of
     arrears,  promotions  etc.   However,  instead  of   implementing   the
     directions contained in the judgment, the  Petitioner  received  letter
     dated 24.01.2013 from Respondent No.4, namely, the Director (Admn.)-cum-
     Additional Secretary, Department of  Education,  Government  of  Bihar)
     stating therein that the proposal was sent for the approval  of  merger
     and the Petitioner were asked to provide details of pay scales etc.  of
     the BSES teacher to expedite the matter.  According to  the  Petitioner
     referring the matter to the Cabinet to approve the merger itself was  a
     contemptuous act inasmuch as there was no question  of  fresh  approval
     from the Cabinet regarding merger. According to the Petitioner with the
     upholding of the Resolution dated 7.07.2006, which was a Resolution  of
     merger, that Resolution stood revived and restored by the Court  itself
     and the  Government  was  only  required  to  grant  the  consequential
     benefits to the BSES teachers by passing formal orders in this  behalf.
     Notwithstanding the same, in compliance with the request  letter  dated
     24.01.2013,  the  Petitioner  submitted  the  required   details   vide
     communication  dated  28.01.2003.   However,  even  thereafter  nothing
     happened even when the matter was persued   repeatedly  and  almost  on
     daily basis with the Government. It  is  at  that  stage  that  present
     contempt petition was filed on 23.01.2013 alleging that the Respondents
     herein had deliberately, willfully and intentionally failed  to  comply
     with the directions contained  in  the  judgment  dated  23.11.2012  by
     refusing  to  grant  all  admissible  benefits  of   mergers   to   the
     Petitioners.

  9. Notice in this contempt petition was issued. Thereafter various  orders
     were passed from time to time taking note of the developments happening
     at the government’s end which included approval for merger and grant of
     certain benefits by the State Cabinet. It would be apt to take note  of
     steps taken by the State Government, in brief, hereunder:

           (a)  On 01.03.2013, the State Cabinet approved the proposal  for
           merger.  This proposal which was approved was of  the  following
           nature:

                “6.  At the time of issuance of  Resolution  No.1209  dated
                07.07.2006 the  estimated  amount  of  expenditure  was  64
                Crore.  Presently this amount is Rs.104 crores.

                7.  (i)  In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble  Supreme
                Court dated 23.11.2012, it is proposed that the  Resolution
                No.1209  dated  07.07.2006  be  revived  and   Notification
                no.1855 dated 19.11.2007 be annulled.

                (ii)  Consequential Benefits are proposed to  be  given  to
                the  cadre  of  teachers  of  Bihar  Subordinate  Education
                Service (Teaching Branch) Male and Female after merger.

                8.  Approval of Finance Departments has been obtained.”

           (b)  After the approval  of  merger  by  the  State  Government,
           Resolution  dated  17.04.2013  was  passed  by   the   Education
           Department, Government of Bihar. Though as per para  6,  earlier
           Notification dated 19.11.2007 was withdrawn and Resolution dated
           07.07.2006 was revived, in para  7  while  giving  consequential
           benefits it was mentioned that for the purpose of granting these
           benefits upto date list from the Director,  Secondary  Education
           was to be obtained and Bihar  Education  Service  Department  of
           Examination Rules, 1973 and order of status  quo  given  by  the
           Supreme Court on 04.07.2011  are  to  be  scrutinized.   It  was
           mentioned that separate orders would be issued  only  thereafter
           in this regards.

           As per the Petitioner,  introduction  of  these  conditions  for
           grant of consequential benefits was not  only  contrary  to  the
           judgment of the Court but even contrary to the Cabinet  approval
           as no such conditions were prescribed in the approval granted by
           the State Cabinet.

           (c)  Thereafter orders dated 24.04.2013 were passed reviving ACP
           benefits which were earlier granted.

            As per the Petitioner even while doing so, in  Para  5  of  the
           said order it was mischievously mentioned that after the  matter
           for  grant  of  consequential  benefits  w.e.f.  01.01.1997  was
           examined, in course of such examination it has been  found  that
           before issuing Resolution No.1209 dated  07.07.2006  all  points
           were not fully considered.

           (d)  On 20.07.2013 press release was issued  by  the  Government
           calling upon all the teachers of erstwhile BSES including  heirs
           of deceased teachers/retired teachers to submit  service  books,
           appointment/promotion  orders,   testimonials   of   educational
           qualifications within three days for  the  purpose  of  granting
           them the benefits.

           In the mean time BSES Association filed I.A. in disposed of C.A.
           No. 8228-8229 of 2012 seeking modification of the said  judgment
           for direction of their seniority  this  I.A.  was  dismissed  on
           13.08.2013  and  while  doing  so  the   Court   observed   that
           implementation  of  orders  dated  23.11.2012  was  deliberately
           obstructed by BSES Officers.

           (e)  On 13.08.2013 a Government Committee, in which BSES Officer
           was special invitee, prepared draft Rules.

           (f)   On  26.07.2013  Government  Order  was   passed   creating
           promotional post  in  the  merged  cadre  w.e.f.  01.01.1977  to
           31.12.1995 and as a result thereof 877  promotional  posts  were
           created in merged BES.

           On the same day, compliance was filed by the State in this Court
           wherein it had been stated as  to  how  the  court  orders  were
           complied with.  It was followed  by  another  compliance  report
           dated 26.08.2013 in the present contempt petitions.

           (g)  When these contempt petitions came up  on  12.12.2013,  the
           Ld. ASG appearing for the State Government stated that seniority
           list on 17.08.2007 shall be given effect  to.  This  is  a  very
           crucial statement. On this statement, direction  was  issued  by
           the Court to grant consequential benefits of merger within eight
           weeks.  Another specific direction  was  given  to  restore  the
           position consequent to  orders  dated  28.06.2007  posting  BSES
           teachers as Principals.

           It resulted in partial obedience in the  form  of  orders  dated
           08.01.2014 by which 100 BSES teachers were posted as Principals.

           (h)   On 26.01.2014, Resolution was  passed  creating  posts  of
           Senior Professors, Senior Lecturers’ and Vice-Principals in  the
           Government schools and upgrading the post of  Principal  to  the
           highest level.  Reason for this given in the Resolution is  that
           it became necessary as  no  new  post  for  BSES  teachers  were
           available after mereger.

           (i)    On  10.02.2014  orders  were  passed  posting  about  257
           teachers.  With  this  all  serving  BSES  teachers  were  given
           postings.

           (j)   By a different order of the same date time bound promotion
           was granted to erstwhile BSES teachers.

           (k)   While all this was happening,  on  12.02.2014,  the  State
           Government promulgated Bihar Education Rules,  2014.  This  act,
           according to the Petitioner shows inveterate  behaviour  of  the
           respondents who have attempted undo the real effect  of  merger.
           These Rules create three sub cadres  within  BES.   Under  these
           Rules BSES  teachers  are  put  in  teaching  sub  cadre,  where
           Principal would be highest promotional post.   In  contrast  BES
           Officers are put in administration sub cadre, who would continue
           to be controlling the schools.  These Rules  also  provide  that
           each sub-cadre  will  have  its  own  separate  seniority  list.
           Further, teaching cadre of BSES is treated as “dying cadre”.

     10.    A glimpse of the aforesaid steps taken after the filing  of  the
     CCP shows  that  some  efforts  are  being  made  to  comply  with  the
     directions of this Court  that  too  after  the  filing  of  this  CCP.
     However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that even when  the  orders
     of creation and upgradation of post etc. are issued there are  so  many
     discrepancies therein which would manifest lack of bona  fides  on  the
     part of the administration to comply with the directions in letter  and
     spirit.  On the contrary in spite of merger,  erstwhile  BSES  teachers
     are given step motherly treatment on the one hand,  and  on  the  other
     hand  BES  employees  are  still  treated  as  the  favourites  of  the
     authorities,  with  the  result  the  discrimination  between  the  two
     continues, even  when  with  the  merger  of  two  cadres,  they  stood
     amalgamated into one and there was no reason to identify them  as  BSES
     and BES any longer.  It is further argued that the provisions of  Bihar
     Education Rules, 2014 (the Rules, 2014) are deliberately made with  the
     aforesaid ragnant motive in mind and made in violation of directions in
     the judgment of this Court.  Various discrepancies in the orders issued
     by the Government from time to time, as well as in the Rules, 2014  are
     pointed out in the manner as below:

     Discrepancies in the orders of posting

           1.  Posting orders have been issued with complete non application
           of mind as even dead and retired teachers have been posted.

           2.  Seniority has been given a complete go by while issuing these
           orders. Juniors have been posted as Principals and seniors posted
           as Vice-Principals, Sr. Professor & Sr. Lecturers.

           3.  Posting the erstwhile BSES teachers in Training  Colleges  is
           impermissible under 1973 Rules as well as the new 2014 Rules.

           4.  These notifications have been issued  on  10.02.2013  posting
           erstwhile BSES teachers as Vice-Principals, Sr.  Professors,  Sr.
           Lecturers.  However, the new Rules were  notified  on  12.02.2014
           and therefore on the day these postings were made, the posts were
           non existent.

     Discrepancies in the creation & upgradation of posts

           1.  Posts of Sr. Professors & Sr. Lecturers are  unheard  of  in
           schools.  Such posts have never existed in any school, let alone
           govt. school and exist only in colleges.

           2.  Creation of these posts show malicious intent as  it  is  an
           attempt to prevent erstwhile BSES teachers from occupying higher
           promotional posts in BES.

           3.  Para 7 of the Resolution dated 29.01.2014  says  that  these
           posts would get  finished  once  the  incumbents  retired.   The
           intention is therefore clear that these posts are  not  required
           and are being used to only ‘park’ the  erstwhile  teachers  till
           they retire.

           4.  The  BES  officers  had  pleaded  in  IA  25-26  that  their
           seniority would be affected  and  they  would  lose  the  higher
           posts.  This IA was dismissed, despite that the respondents have
           devised this creation of posts to protect the BES officers.

           5.  The purported reasoning behind creating these posts is  that
           adequate  promotional  posts  were  created   for   the   period
           01.01.1977  to  31.12.1995  in  the  merged   BES   cadre   vide
           notification dated  26.07.2013.   Even  the  exercise  qua  post
           01.01.1996 period has been completed  vide  notifications  dated
           10.11.2001, 10.12.2002 and 29.06.2004 initially  and  then  vide
           Resolution dated 15.06.2011  as  need  based  posts  promotional
           posts, which are not to be created but merely  identified,  have
           been identified for the BES.

           6.  Other posts/categories of posts were merged in  the  BES  in
           the  past  but  this  exercise  of  creating  posts  was   never
           undertaken.  This is nothing but an  attempt  to  overreach  the
           orders of this Court to protect the BES officers at any cost.

     Discrepancies in the Bihar Education Rules 2014 and  the  Cabinet  Memo
     Approving New Rules.




           1.  This is the most brazen attempt to deny the  petitioner  the
           fruits of its success in three rounds of  litigation  upto  this
           Hon’ble Court.  AS  a  result  of  merger,  the  erstwhile  BSES
           teachers would have been entitled to the highest posts in BES, a
           fact admitted specifically by the BES officers themselves.  As a
           result of these new Rules, they cannot go  beyond  the  post  of
           Principal, which was the basic grade/entry  level  post  of  BES
           till now.

           2.  Even though the BES officers rank much junior to them, these
           BES officers would continue to be the  Controlling  Officers  of
           the schools in which the BSES teachers would be posted by virtue
           of the nature of their posts.

           3.  Merely giving  financial  benefits  to  the  erstwhile  BSES
           teachers is not enough and they could not be denied  the  higher
           posts within BES.

           4.  The real intention to somehow protect the  BES  officers  is
           revealed from para 2 of  cabinet  memo  dated  13.01.2014  which
           speaks of “clearing the way for unobstructed  promotion  of  BES
           officers”.

           5.  A similar attempt to bifurcate cadres  after  the  order  of
           merger in 2006 was shot down by the then Minister  saying  doing
           so  would  amount  to  breaching  court   orders   and   against
           organizational interest.

           6.  There is no direction by this Hon’ble  Court  to  frame  new
           Rules and the respondents are completely misreading para  42  of
           the judgment dated 23.11.2012.  This Hon’ble  Court  had  merely
           considered and rejected the submission of BES officers  opposing
           merger on the ground of lack of new Rules.

           7.  Since 1973 Rules already exist, there  is  no  occasion  nor
           need for new Rules.

           8.  These Rules take away the actual  benefit  of  merger.   The
           very basis of the merger was  to  provide  adequate  promotional
           avenues to the teachers but these Rules take that away.

           9.  The Ld. ASG appearing for the respondents had stated  before
           this  Court  on  12.12.2013  that  the  seniority   list   dated
           17.08.2007 would be given effect  to.   These  Rules  completely
           annul that seniority  list  as  each  sub  cadre  would  have  a
           separate seniority list.

     11.     Mr.  Patwalia,  learned  Senior  Advocate  who  made   detailed
     submissions on  the  aforesaid  aspects  rapped  up  his  arguments  by
     pointing out that Respondents continue to defy the orders of this Court
     which would be clear from the following:

           1.  The erstwhile BSES teachers even now are getting  far  lower
           salaries than what the BES officers, who  rank  much  junior  to
           them in the combined gradation list, are being paid.  Similar is
           the case with regard to pension of retired BSES teachers.   This
           is hostile discrimination and blatant contempt.

           2.  Rather than getting increased, the  pension  of  those  BSES
           teachers,  who  retired  prior  to  09.08.1999,  would  actually
           decrease, a fact admitted by the Accountant general.   This  can
           certainly not be a consequence of merger.

           3.  Despite the reprimand and caution in para 46  &  47  of  the
           judgment dated 23.11.2012,  the  state  continues  to  defy  the
           orders of this Court.

           4.  The petitioner are being denied the benefits despite  orders
           of this Court because of  malafides  on  the  part  of  the  (i)
           present HRD Minister, who  had  defended  the  BES  as  Advocate
           General before the High Court, (ii) one Rameshwar Singh, who was
           proceeded for contempt by the High Court in this very matter but
           is now the Finance Secretary,  (iii)  one  Anjani  Kumar  Singh,
           against whom contempt petition was filed for defying the interim
           orders of this Hon’ble  Court  in  this  case  but  is  now  the
           Principal Secretary to the  Chief  Minister.   These  three  are
           acting at the behest of the BES officers, who are hell  bent  to
           not get the orders of this Hon’ble Court implemented.

           5.  The officers bearers of the petitioner Association are being
           targeted.  The General Secretary of the petitioner has not  been
           paid his GPF dues even though he retired six years ago.

           6.  As a result the erstwhile BSES teachers have not got  either
           the financial or promotional benefits of merger.”


     12.   Mr.  L.  Nageshwar  Rao,  learned  ASG  appeared  on  behalf   of
     Respondents.  He countered the submissions of Mr. Patwalia  by  arguing
     that there was substantial compliance of the  directions  contained  in
     the judgment dated 23.11.2012, and no case for proceedings against  the
     respondents for contempt was made out.  He drew our  attention  to  the
     following steps  which  were  taken  by  the  State  Government,  which
     according to him, amounted to due compliance:


           (i) The direction of this Court was to restore the  Notification
           No. 994 dated 28.6.2007 within 4 weeks. Orders of postings  were
           issued as per the said  notification/list.  Upon  scrutiny  some
           inadvertent mistakes were found, which have been rectified  vide
           office notification dated 10.02.2014.


           (ii)  The postings are as Principal of Schools and Lecturers  of
           Training Colleges which are the promotional posts.   As  regards
           other allegation  relating  to  their  supervision/control,  the
           department vide notification  No.436  dated  10.02.2014  has  in
           clear terms stated in paragraph no.4 of  the  notification  that
           the     matter     related     to     promotion/charge/transfer-
           posting/retiremental  benefit/service  confirmation  of   merged
           officer of Bihar education service Grade-II (merged  officer  of
           subordinate education service teaching branch)  shall  be  dealt
           with  under  the  directorate  of  administration  of  education
           department.


           (iii)  The petitioners have been posted on promotional post  and
           previous consequential orders have been restored.


           (iv)  The petitioners  have  admitted  that  all  the  financial
           benefits of merger have been granted and paid.


        v) Mr. Rao further pointed out that admittedly merger of the  Cadre
           has taken place.  Moreover this merger is w.e.f.  1977  and  all
           the benefits of merger including the time  bound  promotions  or
           the ACP have been granted accordingly.  All the merged employees
           who are in service have been granted posting on higher post  and
           pay-scale.


       vi) He also submitted that the  allegation  regarding  reduction  in
           pension or regarding ACP is only an apprehension. A  categorical
           statement was made at the  Bar  that  there  shall  not  be  any
           reductions in pensions and as per finance  department  decisions
           the person retiring after 09.08.1990 shall also be  granted  3rd
           ACP.


     13.   According  to  Mr.  Rao,  the  aforesaid  steps  taken   by   the
     administration were sufficient to demonstrate that the judgment of this
     Court was complied with.  He submitted  that  under  the  garb  of  the
     present Contempt Petitions, the Petitioners were  now  challenging  the
     rules framed in the year 2014 which was not permissible as validity  of
     the rules could not be gone into  in  contempt  proceedings.   Mr.  Rao
     justified the framing of these rules on the ground that it  had  become
     necessary because of the merger of the two  cadres  and  in  fact  2014
     Rules amounted to giving effect to merger that had been  effected.   If
     the Petitioners had any grievance against any of the provisions of 2014
     Rules, the remedy for the Petitioners was to file separate proceedings.
       It  was  further  submitted  that  the  members  of  the   Petitioner
     Association belonged to Teaching Cadre and had worked only as  teachers
     throughout their service with no administrative experience.  Therefore,
     they could not take any posting on administrative side because of  lack
     of such an experience.  Keeping in mind this position, 2014 Rules  were
     framed and postings had been given as per those  rules.   It  was  also
     submitted that the members of the Petitioner Association  were  due  to
     retire in one or two years and at the fag  end  of  their  career  they
     could not be given administrative assignments. Moreover, the  rank  and
     pay scale is same  and  therefore  the  Petitioners  are  not  affected
     adversely in any manner.


     14.    Mr. Rao also attempted to justify the  provisions  made  in  the
     2014 Rules, which he submitted, was the prerogative  of  the  employer.
     His argument was that direction of this Court was  only  to  merge  the
     cadre.  However,  what  further  benefits  are  to  be  given  and  the
     entitlement of the officers in the merged cadre could not be gone  into
     in the Contempt Petitions.  Moreover, it  was  for  the  Government  to
     decide as to what provisions are to be made for the career progressions
     of the merged employees from two  cadres.   For  that,  Government  had
     complete freedom. To achieve this, 2014  Rules  had  been  framed.   He
     thus, argued that there was no willful disobedience.


     15.    Mr. Rao referred to the following judgments:


           J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, [1996 (6) SCC 291]

           “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in
           setting aside the direction issued by the learned  Single  Judge
           to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr  S.K.  Jain,
           the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the
           learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by
           the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light
           of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge  cannot
           come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had  wilfully
           or deliberately disobeyed the orders of  the  Court  as  defined
           under Section 2(b) of the Act.  Therefore,  the  learned  Single
           Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of
           that question. We do  not  find  that  the  contention  is  well
           founded. It  is  seen  that,  admittedly,  the  respondents  had
           prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions
           came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is  open
           to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it  is
           in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches.
           It is seen that once there is an order passed by the  Government
           on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises
           a fresh cause of action to  seek  redressal  in  an  appropriate
           forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may
           be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions.
           But that would be a fresh cause  of  action  for  the  aggrieved
           party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review.  But  that
           cannot be considered to be the wilful violation  of  the  order.
           After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings,
           a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to
           redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was
           exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits  in
           the contempt proceedings. It  would  not  be  permissible  under
           Section 12  of  the  Act.  Therefore,  the  Division  Bench  has
           exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court
           Ordinance being a judgment or order of  the  Single  Judge;  the
           Division Bench corrected the mistake committed  by  the  learned
           Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for  the  State
           to file an appeal in this Court  against  the  judgment  of  the
           learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized  of  the
           Division Bench.”


           Indian  Airports  Employees’  Union  v.  Ranjan  Chatterjee  and
           Another, [(1999) 2 SCC 537]


           “7. It is well settled that disobedience of orders of the court,
           in order to amount to “civil contempt” under Section 2(b) of the
           Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be “wilful” and proof of  mere
           disobedience is not sufficient (S.S. Roy v.  State  of  Orissa).
           Where there is no deliberate flouting of the orders of the court
           but a mere misinterpretation of the executive  instructions,  it
           would not be a case of civil  contempt  (Ashok  Kumar  Singh  v.
           State of Bihar).


           8. In this contempt case, we do not propose  to  decide  whether
           these six sweepers do fall within the scope of the  notification
           dated 9-12-1976 or the judgment of this Court  dated  11-4-1997.
           That is a question to be decided in appropriate proceedings.


           9. It is true that these six sweepers’ names are  shown  in  the
           annexure to WP No. 2362 of 1990  in  the  High  Court.  But  the
           question is whether there is wilful disobedience of  the  orders
           of this Court. In the counter-affidavit of the  respondents,  it
           is stated that there is no specific direction in the judgment of
           this Court for absorption of these sweepers, if any, working  in
           the car-park area, and that the directions given in the judgment
           were in relation to the sweepers working at  the  “International
           Airport, National Airport Cargo Complex and  Import  Warehouse”.
           It is stated that the  cleaners  employed  by  the  licensee  in
           charge of maintenance of the car-park area do not, on  a  proper
           interpretation of the order, come  within  the  sweep  of  these
           directions. It is contended that even assuming  that  they  were
           included  in  the  category   of   sweepers   working   at   the
           “International Airport”, inasmuch as they were not employed  for
           the purpose of cleaning, dusting and watching the buildings,  as
           mentioned in the notification abolishing contract  labour,  they
           were not covered by the judgment. It is also contended that  the
           case of such sweepers at the car-park area was not even referred
           to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of  the  Contract  Labour
           (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and it was highly  doubtful
           if they were covered by the notification.


           10.  On  the  other  hand,  learned  Senior  Counsel   for   the
           petitioners contended that going by the map of the  Airport,  it
           was clear that these sweepers at the car-park area were  clearly
           covered by the notification and the judgment. The fact that  the
           names of these six employees were shown in the annexures to  the
           writ petition was proof that they were covered by the  judgment.
           The licensee is in the position of a contractor.


           11.  In  our  view,   these   rival   contentions   involve   an
           interpretation of the order of this Court, the notification  and
           other relevant documents. We are not deciding in  this  contempt
           case whether the interpretation put forward by  the  respondents
           or the petitioners is correct. That question has to  be  decided
           in appropriate proceedings. For the  purpose  of  this  contempt
           case, it is sufficient to say that the non-absorption  of  these
           six sweepers was bona fide and was based on an interpretation of
           the above orders and the notification etc. and cannot be said to
           amount to “wilful disobedience” of the orders of this Court.”


           All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v.  L.K.  Tripathi  and
           others, [(2009) 5 SCC 417]


           “78. We may now notice some judgments in which the  courts  have
           considered the question relating to burden of proof in  contempt
           cases. In Bramblevale Ltd., Re Lord Denning  observed:  (All  ER
           pp. 1063 H-1064 B)
           “A contempt of court is an offence of a  criminal  character.  A
           man may be sent to prison for  it.  It  must  be  satisfactorily
           proved. To use the  time-honoured  phrase,  it  must  be  proved
           beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that,  when
           the man was asked about it, he told lies.  There  must  be  some
           further evidence to  incriminate  him.  Once  some  evidence  is
           given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale  against  him.
           But there must be some other evidence. …
           … Where there are two equally consistent possibilities  open  to
           the court, it is not right to hold that the  offence  is  proved
           beyond reasonable doubt.”
           79. In  Mrityunjoy  Das  v.  Sayed  Hasibur  Rahaman  the  Court
           referred to  a  number  of  judicial  precedents  including  the
           observations made by Lord Denning in Bramblevale  Ltd.,  Re  and
           held: (SCC p. 746, para 14)
           “14. … The common English phrase ‘he who asserts must prove’ has
           its due application in the matter of proof  of  the  allegations
           said to be constituting the act  of  contempt.  As  regards  the
           ‘standard of proof’, be it noted that  a  proceeding  under  the
           extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  terms  of   the
           provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal,  and
           as such, the standard of proof required is that  of  a  criminal
           proceeding and the breach shall have to  be  established  beyond
           reasonable doubt.”
           80. In Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati a two-Judge Bench  observed:
           (SCC p. 532, para 2)
           “2. As regards the burden and  standard  of  proof,  the  common
           legal phraseology ‘he  who  asserts  must  prove’  has  its  due
           application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be
           constituting the act of contempt. As regards  the  ‘standard  of
           proof’, be it noted that a proceeding  under  the  extraordinary
           jurisdiction of the court in terms  of  the  provisions  of  the
           Contempt of Courts Act  is  quasi-criminal,  and  as  such,  the
           standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding  and
           the breach shall have to be established  beyond  all  reasonable
           doubt.”


           81. In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh the  Court  referred  to
           Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and observed: (SCC p. 29, para 13)
           “13. … The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been  introduced  in
           the statute book for the  purposes  of  securing  a  feeling  of
           confidence of the people in  general  and  for  due  and  proper
           administration  of  justice  in  the  country  —  undoubtedly  a
           powerful weapon in the hands of  the  law  courts  but  that  by
           itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus otherwise
           satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor  reasonable
           for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the statute.””



     16.  In rejoinder Mr. Patwalia submitted that  even  a  cursory  glance
     into the 2014 Rules and the provision made therein would amply bear out
     that the whole intention of the Rule makers was to frustrate the effect
     of the judgment. According to him that would  amount  to  contempt  and
     from this angle the Court was competent to examine the matter  even  in
     Contempt Petitions.  He further submitted that the argument raised  now
     were precisely the grounds on which  the  Government  had  opposed  the
     merger but the Court had rejected those  arguments.   Therefore,  under
     the garb of implementation of that judgment, same  very  grounds  could
     not be raised to justify making such  provisions  in  2014  Rules.   He
     argued that the Report of the Committee which was relied  upon  by  the
     Respondents in fact rejected the entire issues of merger.  He  referred
     to certain paras from the Report to support his  submission.   He  also
     made the grievance that initially, after the rendering of the  judgment
     of this Court, the Government had started implementing the same and had
     even passed certain orders creating additional post to give  effect  to
     the judgment.  So  much  so  even  seniority  was  finalized.  However,
     thereafter  the  administration  turned   hostile  and  bent  backward.
     Therefore, the entire gamut was open to judicial  review  even  in  the
     contempt proceedings.  He further submitted that there was ample  power
     with this Court, particularly under Article 142 of the Constitution, to
     do complete  justice  in  the  matter  as  held  in  Delhi  Development
     Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and  Another;  (1996)  4
     SCC 622.

           “16. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, this Court dealt  with  the  scope
           and width of the power of this Court under  Article  142.  After
           referring to the earlier decisions of the Court in  extenso,  it
           is held that:


                “… statutory provisions cannot override  the  constitutional
                provisions and Article 142(1) being a  constitutional  power
                it  cannot  be  limited  or  conditioned  by  any  statutory
                provision”.


           It is also held that:
                “… the jurisdiction and powers of this Court  under  Article
                142 which are supplementary in nature and are provided to do
                complete justice in any matter ….”


           In other  words,  the  power  under  Article  142  is  meant  to
           supplement the existing legal framework — to do complete justice
           between the parties — and not to supplant it. It is conceived to
           meet situations which cannot be  effectively  and  appropriately
           tackled by the existing provisions of law. As a matter of  fact,
           we  think  it  advisable  to  leave  this  power  undefined  and
           uncatalogued so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded  to
           suit the given situation. The  very  fact  that  this  power  is
           conferred only upon this Court, and on no one else, is itself an
           assurance  that  it  will  be  used  with  due   restraint   and
           circumspection, keeping in view the  ultimate  object  of  doing
           complete justice between the parties. Now, coming to  the  facts
           of the case before us, the question is not what can be done, but
           what should be done? We are  of  the  opinion  that  even  while
           acting under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we  ought
           not to reopen the orders and decisions of the courts which  have
           become final. We do not think that for  doing  complete  justice
           between the parties before us, it is necessary to resort to this
           extraordinary step. We are saying this in view of the contention
           urged by S/Shri Salve and Dhavan that since the  DDA  has  taken
           over not only the plot  but  also  the  construction  raised  by
           Skipper thereon (free from all encumbrances) in addition to  the
           sum of Rs 15.89 crores  (said  to  have  been  paid  by  Skipper
           towards the sale consideration of the  said  plot),  the  monies
           required for paying the persons defrauded should come out of the
           kitty  of  DDA.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  plot,  the
           construction raised thereon and the monies already paid  towards
           the  sale  consideration  of  the  said  plot  have  all  vested
           absolutely in the DDA free from all encumbrances  under  and  by
           virtue of the decision of the  Delhi  High  Court  dated  21-12-
           1990/14-1-1991, which decision has indeed been affirmed by  this
           Court by dismissing the special leave petition preferred against
           it. It may not be open to us to ignore the  said  decisions  and
           orders, including the orders of this Court, and/or to go  behind
           those decisions/orders and say that the amount received  by  DDA
           towards sale consideration from Skipper  or  the  value  of  the
           construction raised by Skipper on the said plot should  be  made
           available for paying out the persons defrauded  by  Skipper.  We
           must treat those decisions and orders as final  and  yet  devise
           ways and means of doing complete  justice  between  the  parties
           before us.


           The contemner should not be  allowed  to  enjoy  or  retain  the
           fruits of his contempt.”



     17.  He also referred to the judgment in the case of Ashish  Ranjan  v.
     Anupma Tandon and another; (2010) 14 SCC 274.

           “20. In addition to the statutory provisions of the Contempt  of
           Courts Act, 1971 the powers under Articles 129 and  142  of  the
           Constitution are always available to this Court to see that  the
           order or undertaking which  is  violated  by  the  contemnor  is
           effectuated and the court has all powers to enforce the  consent
           order passed by it and also issue further  directions/orders  to
           do complete  justice  between  the  parties.  Mutual  settlement
           reached between the parties cannot come in the way of the  well-
           established principles in respect of the custody  of  the  child
           and, therefore, a subsequent application for custody of a  minor
           cannot be thrown out at the threshold being not maintainable. It
           is a recurring cause because the right of  visitation  given  to
           the applicant under the  agreement  is  being  consistently  and
           continuously flouted. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata is  not
           applicable in matters of child custody.”



     18.    He concluded his submissions by arguing that  there  were  three
     rounds of litigation earlier and  the  Petitioners  were  fighting  for
     justice since 1977 when decision was taken by the Government  to  merge
     the two cadres. By framing  2014  Rules,  the  Government  negated  the
     effect of merger thereby leaving the petitioners in  lurch  once  again
     and now the plea was taken to approach  the  Court  again  with  fourth
     round of litigation.  He pointed out that during this period,  most  of
     the members of the Petitioner Association had retired and very few  who
     were left were going to retire in near future. The whole  intention  of
     the authorities was to tire out these petitioners and  frustrate  their
     efforts which should not be countenanced.


     19.    At the outset, we may observe  that  we  are  conscious  of  the
    limits within which we can undertake the scrutiny of the steps taken by
    the respondents, in these Contempt proceedings. The Court  is  supposed
    to adopt cautionary approach which  would  mean  that  if  there  is  a
    substantial compliance of the directions given in  the  judgment,  this
    Court is not supposed to go  into  the  nitty  gritty  of  the  various
    measures taken by the Respondents. It is  also  correct  that  only  if
    there is willful and contumacious disobedience of the orders, that  the
    Court would take cognizance. Even when there are two equally consistent
    possibilities open to the Court, case of contempt is not made  out.  At
    the same time, it is permissible for the Court to examine as to whether
    the steps taken to  purportedly  comply  with  the  directions  of  the
    judgment are in furtherance of its compliance or they  tend  to  defeat
    the very purpose for which the directions were issued. We can certainly
    go into the issue as to whether the Government took  certain  steps  in
    order to implement the directions of this Court and thereafter withdrew
    those measures and whether it amounts  to  non-implementation.  Limited
    inquiry from the aforesaid perspective, into  the  provisions  of  2014
    Rules can also be undertaken to find out as to whether those provisions
    amount to nullifying the effect of the very merger of BSES with BES. As
    all these aspects have a  direct  co-relation  with  the  issue  as  to
    whether the directions are implemented or not.  We are,  thus,  of  the
    opinion that this Court can indulge in  this  limited  scrutiny  as  to
    whether provisions made in 2014  Rules  frustrate  the  effect  of  the
    judgment and attempt  is  to  achieve  those  results  which  were  the
    arguments raised by the respondents at the time of hearing of C.A.  No.
    8226-8227 of 2012 but rejected by this Court. To put it  otherwise,  we
    can certainly examine as to whether 2014 Rules are  made  to  implement
    the judgment or these Rules in effect nullify the result of  merger  of
    the two cadres.

     20.    As noted above, the resolution of merger earlier was  passed  on
     7.7.2006 after rendition of the judgment dated 19.4.2006 by this  Court
     in the second round of litigation. This was preceded by a Note for  the
     Cabinet regarding merger. A perusal of this Cabinet Note shows that the
     total history about the various proceedings culminating  into  judgment
     dated 19.4.2006 is given.  We  have  to  keep  in  mind  that  original
     Resolution for merger is Resolution No. 3512 dated 11.4.1977  which  is
     directed to be implemented. In the Cabinet Note dated  3.7.2006  it  is
     noted as under:-

           “In the year 1977, the number of total created/ sanctioned  post
           of the male and female teachers was 2465,  against  which  total
           working strength were 1336, which decreased to 880 by  the  year
           2006. Out of  this  if  301  units  belonging  to  Jharkhand  is
           deducted, it comes to 579 only.

       14. It is to be noted that in view of the  provisions  contained  in
           resolution No. 3521 dated  11.4.1977  several  departments  have
           merged the lower scales with the higher ones. But the incumbents
           of this cadre of the Education Deptt.  have  been  denied  their
           promotions after 1977 which was  otherwise  due.  Where  as  the
           incumbents of Inspecting Branch of this cadre  are  reported  to
           have been promoted upto 2001.”




     21.    Thereafter, the proposal for creation of more posts is contained
     in Para 15 which reads as under:

           “15.  Therefore, consequent upon complying  the  orders  of  the
           Hon'ble  Courts  it  is  proposed  to  upgrade   2465   created/
           sanctioned posts of teachers of  subordinate  education  service
           male and female cadre to Bihar Education Service Class-2  w.e.f.
           1.1.1977.”




     22.    Resolution to this effect was passed  on  7.7.2006.  Thereafter,
     combined gradation list of the merged cadre of BES dated 17.8.2007  was
     issued. In this consolidated seniority list of officers of combined BES
     Service, the employees of both the merged cadre is shown as  per  their
     seniority. This was the precise manner in  which  the  authorities  had
     understood the scheme of merger  and  acted  earlier  pursuant  to  the
     judgment dated 19.4.2006. Directions contained in  the  judgment  dated
     23.11.2012 in C.A. Nos. 8226-8227 of 2012 are  reiteration  of  earlier
     judgment dated  19.4.2006.  In  fact,  it  is  specifically  held  that
     Resolution dated 7.7.2006 is valid and later Resolution dated 17.1.2008
     annulling the earlier Resolution dated 7.7.2006 has  been  quashed.  It
     thus becomes obvious that the respondents were to  revive  the  earlier
     order/ Resolution of merger as well as combined gradation  list  issued
     earlier. These remedial  steps  were  necessitated  to  carry  out  the
     direction of the judgment. Let us see whether such steps are taken  now
     or 2014 Rules are in the teeth of the aforesaid directions.

     23.    We find that Cabinet proposal dated  1.3.2013  regarding  merger
     was prepared on 1.3.2013 which referred to the earlier  Resolution  No.
     1209 dated 7.7.2006, in the following manner:

           “At the time of issuance of Resolution No. 1209  dated  7.7.2006
           the estimated amount of expenditure was 64 crore. Presently this
           amount is Rs. 104 crores.

                (I)    In compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated
                23.11.2012, it is proposed  that  the  Resolution  No.  1209
                dated 7.7.2006 be revived and Notification  No.  1855  dated
                19.11.2007 be annulled.

                (ii)   Consequential benefits are proposed to  be  given  to
                the cadre of teachers of Bihar Subordinate Education Service
                (Teaching Branch) Male and Female after merger.

                Approval of Finance Departments has been obtained.”

     24.     Significantly,  Resolution  dated  2.4.2013   passed   by   the
     Government revived earlier  Resolution  No.  1209  dated  7.7.2006  and
     withdraws Notification No. 1855 dated 18.11.2007. So far so  good.  The
     only  thing  that  remained  was  to  revive  the  combined  seniority/
     gradation list also which was issued  on  17.8.2007  and  give  further
     benefits of promotion, postings, ACP etc. based thereupon.

     25.    We find that first order dated 24.4.2013 was issued for grant of
     ACP. While giving this benefit, seed of mischief is sown  as  is  clear
     from the following portion therein:

           “For implementation of the order  of  the  Supreme  Court  dated
           23.11.2012, the grant of consequential benefits with effect from
           1.1.1977 to the merged officers is being examined. In the course
           of such examination, it has been found prima facie  that  before
           issuing Resolution No. 1209 dated 7.7.2006, all points were  not
           fully considered.”




     26.    It is a matter of  record  that  Resolution  No.  1209/2006  was
     passed by the Cabinet which means that  it  was  the  decision  at  the
     highest level. It was not open to some officer sitting in the Education
     Department to make such comments by exhibiting his  superior  knowledge
     about the purported issued, that too in an order granting  ACP  to  the
     merged teachers as a consequence of  merger.   This  was  the  starting
     point to reopen the settled issue of merger of two cadres.

     27.    We would like to point out here that officers of  erstwhile  BES
     i.e. BES Association had filed I.A. 25-26 of 2013 in this very  decided
     appeal i.e. C.A. No. 8226-8227 of 2012 seeking  to  rake  up  the  same
     issue about the gradation list. This was  specifically  contended  that
     merger takes effect from the date when posts are created.  Apprehension
     was expressed that affect the vested right of seniority of the  members
     of BES Association (BESA) who are already in  the  cadre,  particularly
     Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 51 and some other  members  of  BESA.  It  was
     mentioned that some of the officers  were  holding  the  post  of  sub-
     Director or RDDE who were appointed in December, 1983 and they may have
     to face reversion. However, this I.A. was dismissed by the Court.

     28.    Notwithstanding the aforesaid, we find that 2014 Rules  seek  to
     achieve the same result which was neither the intent of merger nor  was
     permitted by this Court at the instance of BESA in  their  application.
     On the contrary, as noted below, by  an  ingenious  method,  effect  of
     merger is undone thereby.

     29.    These 2014 Rules created four sub-cadres within BES which are as
     under:

           “3.   Constitution of service: The Bihar Education Service shall
           be a state service. There shall be following four sub cadres  in
           this service:-

                a)     Bihar Education Service (Administration sub cadre)

                b)     Bihar Education Service (Teaching sub cadre),  (Dying
                Cadre)

                c)     Bihar Education  Service  (Research  &  Training  sub
                cadre) and

                d)     Bihar Education Service (Isolated sub cadre).”

            Rule 4 states that none of the officers of one sub-cadre will be
     transferred and posted in another sub cadre.

     30.    It follows from the above that the teaching sub cadre, to  which
     category members of the petitioner association belong to, is  not  only
     isolated again but even treated as “dying cadre”. In  order  to  ensure
     that members of BESA continue to  enjoy  their  promotions  which  were
     given earlier and those are not disturbed, it is further provided  that
     persons belonging to teaching cadre namely the petitioners would not be
     transferred and posted in administrative sub cadre. What BESA attempted
     to achieve by means of C.A. Nos. 25-26/2013 and was  declined  by  this
     Court, is now accomplished with this methodology.

     31.    To add insult to the injury caused to the petitioner, Rule 27 of
     the Rules gives option to the members of other sub cadre for  inclusion
     in a different cadre fulfilling the prescribed qualifications,  but  no
     such option is given to the teaching  cadre.  This  Rule  27  reads  as
     under:

           “27.  The officers appointed/ promoted and working on the  above
           posts of this sub cadre and having the prescribed  qualification
           of these posts shall give the option for inclusion in  this  sub
           cadre. In case of having no qualification or not  giving  option
           for inclusion in this  sub  cadre  or  in  case  of  working  on
           deputation basis, they shall  be  reverted  back  to  their  own
           cadre, if they are appointed on these posts, they  shall  remain
           on their posts but they shall not get  the  benefit  of  regular
           promotion in this sub cadre.”

     32.    By placing the erstwhile BSES teachers in  teaching  sub  cadre,
     are allowed to go upto the position of Principal which is  the  highest
     promotional post in their sub cadre. On the other hand BES Officers who
     are put in administrative sub  cadre  would  continue  to  control  the
     schools. Moreover, each sub cadre is to  have  its  separate  seniority
     list. It means the combined gradation list is given a go bye  and  even
     by bringing BSES in BES, segregation between the two cadres is achieved
     with these provisions. To our mind the  aforesaid  provisions  of  2014
     Rules negate the very effect of merger which was envisaged way back  in
     the year 1977. In spite of succeeding in three  rounds  of  litigation,
     the petitioners are not only treated as a distinct and  separate  class
     with the creation of the aforesaid sub cadre, the benefit  which  could
     accrue to them in a combined seniority list, as  a  result  of  merger,
     have been snatched away from them. What was given to these  petitioners
     by the respondents in compliance of the judgment earlier, has now  been
     taken away with the promulgation of 2014 Rules.

     33.    Lest we may be misunderstood, we make it clear that  it  is  the
     prerogative of the Government to frame service  rules  in  one  or  the
     other manner. In case provisions contained in those  Rules  offend  the
     rights of any of the employees,  they  have  an  independent  right  to
     challenge the same which can be judicially scrutinized by  the  Courts,
     applying the settled principles of judicial review. However, if such an
     exercise is undertaken on the premise that it is done  to  comply  with
     the directions contained in the judgment and the Court finds  that,  ex
     facie, it is not so and on the contrary offends the directions  in  the
     judgment, such a move cannot be countenanced.

     34.    It is also crystal clear and borne  from  the  record  that  the
     whole exercise was done to go out of way to help BES Officers. In fact,
     Mr. Rao even argued on these lines by pointing out that the  promotions
     in BES cadres were made in two stages i.e. upto 31.12.1995 in one stage
     and from 1.1.1996 till now  in  the  second  stage.  From  1.1.1996  no
     promotion was given to BES because it was  need  based  and  since  the
     posts were to be identified, only the additional charge  was  given  to
     them. What is lost sight of, in this entire  arguments,  is  that,  the
     merger is to take effect from 1977 and even Resolution to  that  effect
     is passed by the Cabinet. Further once that is done  and  the  combined
     gradation list issued in the year 2007 was to be  necessarily  revived,
     further steps were to be taken from  that  stage.  This  Court  is  not
     suggesting that those of the petitioners who  become  senior  to  their
     counterparts in BES, should be given automatic promotion to  second  or
     third stages which was the apprehension expressed. These officers, as a
     result of merger and combined gradation list, would take their rightful
     place and thereafter their career progression would be  permissible  as
     per the Rules. For this purpose it was open to the Government to  frame
     the Rules and  make  provisions  laying  down  eligibility  conditions.
     However, by well crafted technique of creating sub cadres and  treating
     teaching category as dying sub cadre, almost the same result, which was
     the position before the merger, is achieved. It is  obvious  that  such
     provisions in 2014 Rules are made with the sole intention to  frustrate
     the effect of the judgment. We have no  hesitation  to  say  that  this
     would amount to contempt of the Court.

     35.    Having held so, let us consider as to what  steps  are  required
     for proper implementation of the judgment. Since the statement is  made
     by Mr. Rao, which is contained in Government written response as  well,
     that the petitioner would be given all due benefits of  ACP  and  their
     pension will also be not reduced, we take to that statement on  record.
     What remains is the restoration of combined gradation list and  posting
     of the officers of the petitioner's association and their promotions on
     that basis. Having regard to the concession made by Mr. Patwalia in the
     form of solution suggested by him, it is not necessary for us  to  give
     directions to the administration to make all  consequential  amendments
     in the 2014 Rules. Mr. Patwalia, submitted that if Rule 27  is  amended
     to give option to the  teachers  as  well,  the  petitioners  would  be
     satisfied with the same. We are of the opinion that it is a  very  fair
     suggestion to solve the problem.

     36.    We thus, dispose of these Contempt Petitions with the  following
     directions:

           (i)   The combined gradation list issued on 17.8.2007 is revived
           and is to be acted upon  and  implemented  by  the  Respondents/
           Authorities, or

           Suitable amendment in the alternative be made in Rule 27 of 2014
           Rules giving option to the teachers also, as permitted to  other
           sub cadres.

           (ii)  It would be open to the respondents not  to  demote  those
           BES Officers who are holding administrative  assignment  on  the
           higher posts. However, that would not be at the  cost  of  those
           petitioners belonging to teaching sub cadre who, as a result  of
           combined seniority list, have become  senior to BES Officers. We
           leave it to the Government to find whatever solution  they  have
           to deal with this issue.

           (iii) Consequential benefits which may accrue to the petitioners
           shall be accorded to them.

           (iv)  The entire exercise be  done  and  accomplished  within  a
           period of 3 months.

           (v)   On failure on the part of the respondents/  administration
           to take the aforesaid steps, it would be open to the petitioners
           to move an I.A. in these very  Contempt  Petitions  seeking  its
           revival with prayer to proceed further against  the  respondents
           in accordance with law.

       vi) The petitioner shall also be entitled  to  the  costs  of  these
           proceedings, which we fix at Rs. 50,000/-.

                                                            ……………………....……J.
                                                     [Surinder Singh Nijjar]




                                                            ...………………………….J.
                                                                [A.K. Sikri]





            New Delhi
            May 07,2014



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.