2025:UHC:9105 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Civil Contempt No. 149 of 2020 13 October, 2025 Dr. Hari Ram Jaiswal & others --Petitioners Versus Dr. Tej Pratap Vice Chancellor G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology and another --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bora, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 2. -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of final judgment dated 07.08.2019, rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 445 of 2014. By the said judgment, following direction was issued:- “38. As work was extracted from them, ever-since they were upgraded as Junior Scientists on 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 respectively, the petitioners cannot be denied payment of the enhanced pay scales applicable to the upgraded posts of Junior Scientists. While we see no justification, in the respondents denying the petitioners the upgraded pay-scale of Junior 1 2025:UHC:9105 Scientists of Rs. 8000-13500, we cannot also lose sight of the fact that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, only on 03.12.2014 i.e. nearly six years after they were upgraded with effect from 18.12.2008. We may, therefore, not be justified in fastening the liability of payment of arrears of salary, on the respondent-University, for the period anterior thereto, since the petitioners themselves had kept quiet in the interregnum. While the petitioners shall be extended the benefits of notional increments from the date on which they were upgraded to the post of Junior Scientist i.e. from 18.12.2008, they shall be entitled to arrears of salary, applicable to the upgraded posts of Junior Scientists carrying the higher pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500, only from 01.01.2015 i.e. the month after they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on 03.12.2014.” 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Division Bench declared petitioners to be holding the position equivalent to Assistant Professor and directed the University to grant them pay scale admissible for the post of Assistant Professor i.e. `8,000-13,500/- with Academic Grade Pay of `6,000/-, however, the said direction is violated and petitioners were granted only pay scale of `8,000-13,500/-, but Grade Pay of `6,000/- was denied to them. 3. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no. 1, per contra submits that petitioners had challenged order dated 04.11.2015, issued by the competent authority in the University, whereby PRC scale of 2 2025:UHC:9105 `8,000-13,500/- granted to the petitioners was withdrawn and the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment interfered with the order dated 04.11.2015, as a result petitioners became entitled to benefit of PRC scale. He submits that petitioners were entitled to `8,000-13,500/- as PRC scale, which has been restored to them and since there was no direction for grant of UGC scale to the petitioners, therefore, the allegation that judgment rendered by Division Bench has been violated, is incorrect. 4. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in a University, there can’t be two category of Assistant Professors, one getting UGC scale and another PRC scale. The said issue, however, cannot be agitated in a Contempt Petition, where violation of the judgment alone is to be seen and merits of the dispute cannot be gone into. 5. Be that as it may, since there is no direction for payment of UGC pay scale with Grade Pay of `6,000/- to the petitioners in the judgment rendered by Division Bench, therefore, it is not a 3 2025:UHC:9105 case of willful disobedience of the order. Although, in paragraph no. 25 of the judgment, there is a finding returned that petitioners are entitled to UGC scales, however, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, where direction is issued, the expression ‘UGC scale’ is missing and only it is mentioned that petitioners are entitled to scale of `8,000-13,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.2015. 6. University Authorities can be held to be guilty of Contempt of Courts Act only if they are found to be willfully disobeying the judgment. In the present case, there is no direction to grant UGC scales to the petitioners, therefore, opposite parties cannot be said to be deliberately violating the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court. 7. In such view of the matter, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notices issued to opposite parties are hereby discharged. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 13.10.2025 Navin 4 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.10.14 10:42:01 +05'30'