Smt. Shweta Diwan vs. Mohd. Imran Khan

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Shweta Diwan, a steno typist in the GST department, sought the benefit of a revised pay scale granted in 2021 based on earlier circulars from undivided Madhya Pradesh (1983 and 1985) for qualified steno-typists with seven years of service. This benefit was later cancelled based on an objection that the 1983 and 1985 circulars were themselves cancelled in 2014. However, a memo from the Chhattisgarh General Administration Department in 2018 stated these circulars remained effective in Chhattisgarh. The petitioner filed a contempt petition for non-compliance with a High Court order dated 08.01.2024 in WPS No. 9061 of 2023, which directed the respondents to re-examine the matter and pass a reasoned order considering the 2018 memo.

Held

The Court held that the respondents had complied with the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPS No. 9061 of 2023. The reasoning was that the respondents, after seeking instructions from higher authorities, did pass a reasoned order dated 30.09.2024. This order, while rejecting the petitioner's claim for the revised pay scale based on the 1983 and 1985 memos, was a direct consequence of the re-examination directed by the Court. The Court noted that the Under Secretary, Department of General Administration, had informed the Director, Pension and Provident Fund, that the 1983 and 1985 memos were not in existence, and this information was subsequently conveyed to the Divisional Joint Directors. The order dated 30.09.2024 was passed by the Office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury & Account, rejecting the petitioner's entitlement. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondents had fulfilled the directive to pass a reasoned order, and contempt proceedings were not necessary. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition if she desired to pursue her grievance further.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPS No. 9061 of 2023, which directed them to re-examine the petitioner's matter and pass a reasoned order, considering the Chhattisgarh General Administration Department's memo dated 13.08.2018 stating that notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985 are still effective in the State of Chhattisgarh. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents had not paid attention to her representation and had failed to comply with the court's order. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that they had sought clarification from higher authorities regarding the applicability of the 1983/1985 circulars versus the 2014 instruction but did not receive a timely response. They further stated that a reasoned order was eventually passed on 30.09.2024, rejecting the petitioner's entitlement based on subsequent information from the General Administration Department indicating the 1983 and 1985 memos were not in existence.