Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mangat Ram Parihar And Another v. B. R. Sharma

Mangat Ram Parihar And Another v. B. R. Sharma

(High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir)

MP No.1/2017, Contempt (SWP) No.493/2016, MP No.2/2017. | 15-09-2017

Heard.

This Contempt Petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in SWP No.53/2011, by which the Division Bench has directed the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, learned counsel for the respondents filed the status report in terms of the order dated 06.07.2017 in which it is stated that the Finance Department has conveyed its concurrence to the decision taken in the meeting held on 01.08.2017. It is further submitted that the proposals on the recommendations were decided to be re-examined and the decision will be taken immediately thereafter.

After perusal of the aforesaid status report, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the benefit of advance increment at the existing pay scale instead of initial pay-scale is required to be granted and the respondents are under an obligation to create 53 posts of Section Officers as per the recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission.

In view of the aforesaid submission, learned senior Additional Advocate General submits that the recommendations shall be implemented in its letter and spirit and the respondents shall accord the benefit of the recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission to the ministerial staff of the Subordinate Courts in the State by granting one advance increment at the existing pay scale and the respondents shall also create 53 posts of Section Officers and will implement the other recommendations of the Shetty Pay Commission within a period of two months from today.

In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned senior Additional Advocate General, we are not inclined to proceed further with contempt proceedings and accordingly same are dropped with liberty to the petitioners that in case the recommendations are not implemented within the aforesaid period, the petitioners shall file fresh contempt petition, if so advised.

With the aforesaid liberty, the contempt petition is disposed of.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate, for Petitioner/appellants; Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, Sr. AAG, for respondents
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE B.S. WALIA, JJ.
Eq Citations
  • LQ/JKHC/2017/605
Head Note

Contempt Petitions — Dropped — Contempt petition filed for non-compliance of order dt. 09.03.2016 passed by Division Bench of Supreme Court in SWP No.53/2011, by which Division Bench had directed respondents to implement recommendations of Shetty Commission — In view of submissions of respondents, contempt proceedings dropped with liberty to petitioners to file fresh contempt petition, if recommendations are not implemented within stipulated period — Constitution of India, Art. 129