High Court · 2025

Presence: - Mr. Avt ar Singh Rawat , Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Ms. I ndu Sharm a, Advocat e for t he pet it ioners. Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bora, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocat e for respondent no. 1. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for t he St at e/ respondent no. 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUD GM EN T This Cont em pt Pet it ion has been alleging w illful disobedience of final j udgm ent dat ed

07.08.2019, rendered by Division Bench of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 445 of 2014. By t he said j udgm ent , follow ing direct ion was issued: - “ 38. As work was ext ract ed from t hem , ever- since t hey were upgraded as Junior Scient ist s on t he 18.12.2008 respect ively, 18.07.2010 pet it ioners cannot be denied paym ent of t he t he upgraded enhanced pay scales applicable post s of Junior Scient ist s. While we see no t he j ust ificat ion, Junior pet it ioners t he upgraded pay - scale of respondent s denying t he t o 1 Scient ist s of Rs. 8000- 13500, we cannot also lose sight of t he fact t hat t he pet it ioners have invoked t he j urisdict ion of t his Court , by way of t he present writ pet it ion, only on 03.12.2014 i.e. nearly six years t hey were upgraded wit h effect aft er 18.12.2008. We m ay, t herefore, not be j ust ified in fast ening t he liabilit y of paym ent of arrears of salary, on t he respondent - Universit y, for t he period ant erior t heret o, since t he pet it ioners t hem selves had kept quiet in t he int erregnum . While t he pet it ioners shall be ext ended t he benefit s of not ional increm ent s from t he dat e on which t hey were upgraded t o t he post of Junior Scient ist i.e. from 18.12.2008, t hey shall be t he ent it led t o t o arrears of salary, applicable t he upgraded post s of Junior Scient ist s carrying higher pay- scale of Rs. 8000- 13500, only 01.01.2015 i.e. t he m ont h aft er t hey invoked t he j urisdict ion of t his Court on 03.12.2014.”

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat Division Bench declared pet it ioners t o be holding t he posit ion equivalent t o Assist ant Professor and direct ed t he Universit y t o grant t hem pay scale adm issible for t he post of Assist ant Professor i.e. `8,000- 13,500/ - wit h Academ ic Grade Pay of `6,000/ - , however, t he said direct ion is violat ed and pet it ioners w ere grant ed only pay scale of `8,000- 13,500/ - , but Grade Pay of `6,000/ - was denied t o t hem .

3. Mr. Raj endra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing for opposit e part y no. 1, per cont ra subm it s t hat pet it ioners had challenged order dat ed 04.11.2015, issued by t he com pet ent aut horit y in t he Universit y, w hereby PRC scale of 2 `8,000- 13,500/ - grant ed t o t he pet it ioners was w it hdrawn and t he Division Bench in t he aforesaid j udgm ent int erfered w it h t he dat ed

04.11.2015, as a result pet it ioners becam e ent it led t o benefit of PRC scale. He subm it s t hat pet it ioners were ent it led t o `8,000- 13,500/ - as PRC scale, which has been rest ored t o t hem and since t here was no direct ion for grant of UGC scale t o t he pet it ioners, t herefore, t he allegat ion t hat j udgm ent rendered by Division Bench has been violat ed, is incorrect .

4. Mr. A.S. Rawat , learned senior counsel appearing for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat in a Universit y, t here can’t be t wo cat egory of Assist ant Professors, one get t ing UGC scale and anot her PRC scale. The said issue, however, cannot be agit at ed in a Cont em pt Pet it ion, where violat ion of t he j udgm ent alone is t o be seen and m erit s of t he disput e cannot be gone int o.

5. Be t hat as it m ay, since t here is no direct ion for paym ent of UGC pay scale w it h Grade Pay of `6,000/ - t o t he pet it ioners in t he j udgm ent rendered by Division Bench, t herefore, it is not a 3 case of w illful disobedience of t he order. Alt hough, in paragraph no. 25 of t he j udgm ent , t here is a finding ret urned t hat pet it ioners are ent it led t o UGC scales, however, in t he penult im at e paragraph of t he j udgm ent , where direct ion issued, t he expression ‘UGC scale’ is m issing and only it is m ent ioned t hat pet it ioners are ent it led t o scale of `8,000- 13,500/ - w.e.f. 01.01.2015.

6. Universit y Aut horit ies can be held t o be guilt y of Cont em pt of Court s Act only if t hey are found t o be willfully disobeying t he j udgm ent . I n t he present case, t here is no direct ion t o grant UGC scales t o t he pet it ioners, t herefore, opposit e part ies cannot be said t o be deliberat ely v iolat ing t he j udgm ent rendered by Division Bench of t his Court .

7. I n such v iew of t he m at t er, t he Cont em pt Pet it ion is disposed of. Not ices issued t o opposit e part ies are hereby discharged. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Dt : 13.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A1038 19DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2 1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 4