Shetty Pay Commission recommendations
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 22: In a petition filed by the employees borne on the cadre of Subordinate Courts seeking implementation of Shetty Commission Report so far as recommendations pertaining to the Ministerial staff working in the Subordinate Courts are concerned, a Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Atul Sreedharan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri has issued directions for complying with the order failing which Finance Secretary and Law Secretary shall appear in person.
“The respondents are already in gross contempt of the order of the Division Bench and thereafter the order passed by this court in contempt proceedings dated 19.07.2023. Under the circumstances, the contempt petitioners have two options that to comply with the orders passed by this court in letter and spirit before the next date of hearing—25.04.2024. On that date, the compliance of order dated 19.07.2023 has to be placed before this court and its absence, the Finance Secretary and the Law Secretary shall remain present in person”, the DB said, adding “their failure to do so will compel this court to resort to coercive measures commencing with the issuance of bailable warrants against them”.
DB further observed, “this is a contempt petition which is pending since the year 2017. During this time, the case has been listed before this court not less than 39 times. The case has been pending for the compliance of the order passed by the Single Judge on 08.12.2016. By the said order, the writ petition that was filed by the contempt petitioners, who are the ministerial staff working with the District Judiciary, were given the benefit of the Shetty Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.2003 which was agreed to be implemented by the Chief Minister of the State which was recorded in the minutes dated 02.04.2008”.
“Eight years have passed since the date of that order and the contempt petitioners in this petition have yet to be given the benefit of one of the recommendations which is retrospective in effect from 01.04.2003. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the matter came up before the Co-ordinate Bench which by elaborate order on 19.07.2023, rejected the objections of the respondents that the retrospective effect has not been given”, the DB further said.
“The plea of respondent that the posts cannot be created retrospectively is untenable in law and cannot be accepted. The creation of posts from retrospective date to comply with judgment of competent court of jurisdiction is not unknown to service jurisprudence”, the DB said, adding “thereafter, this court has directed the High Court as well as the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to file respective action taken reports. Those action taken reports were filed. However, the respondents filed an application for modification of order dated 19.07.2023 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.03.2024″.
“It is also relevant to mention here that the Co-ordinate Bench while dismissing the application for modification also observed that the modification sought for was totally uncalled for”, the DB said, adding “we are of the opinion that the respondents are already in gross contempt of the order of the Division Bench and thereafter the order passed by this court in contempt proceedings dated 19.07.2023”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
