advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, April 12, 2015

We give one more opportunity to the respondents to comply with the judgments and orders in toto for the regularization of the services of the complainants from the year 1981. The same cannot be treated as a fresh direction issued in the contempt petitions to the respondents as we have indicated the purport of the operative portion of the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court. The respondents shall comply with the order as indicated above and submit their compliance report within four weeks from today, in terms of the signed Non-Reportable Judgment.

                               NON REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 421 of 2014

                                     In

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4831 OF 2014


GAURI SHANKAR PD. RAI                 .........PETITIONER

                                     Vs.


SAJAL CHAKROBORTY, CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVT.OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.             ......RESPONDENTS



                     WITH

            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.428/2014 in C.A. No.4815/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.431/2014 in C.A. No.4823/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.427/2014 in C.A. No.4836/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.424/2014 in C.A. No.4824/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.432/2014 in C.A. No.4828/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.423/2014 in C.A. No.4822/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.425/2014 in C.A. No.4821/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.433/2014 in C.A. No.4820/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.426/2014 in C.A. No.4817/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.430/2014 in C.A. No.4819/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.422/2014 in C.A. No.4832/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.429/2014 in C.A. No.4830/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.502/2014 in C.A. No.4829/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.501/2014 in C.A. No.4818/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.503/2014 in C.A. No.4812/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.350/2014 in C.A. No.4809/2014
            CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.547/2014 in C.A. No.4810/2014




                                  O R D E R



V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

       The  above  said  group  of  contempt  petitions  are  filed  by  the
complainant-petitioners requesting  this  Court  to  initiate  the  contempt
proceedings against the respondents for their alleged  disobedience  in  not
complying with the direction issued by this  Court  in  the  judgment  dated
23.04.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.4809 of 2014 along with other batch  of
Civil Appeals, the operative portion  of  the  order  passed  in  the  above
Appeals reads thus:
"...We accordingly direct the appellants to  implement  the  orders  of  the
Division Bench of the High  Court  thereby  continuing  the  respondents  in
their services and extend all benefits as have been granted  by  it  in  the
impugned judgment."

 Contempt Petition No. 350 of 2014 in C.A. No. 4809 of 2014 was first  taken
up  on  11.8.2014,  when  this  Court  ordered  the  issuance   of   notice.
Subsequently, the other connected contempt petitions were also listed  along
with the main contempt petition No.421 of 2014 in C.A.  No.  4831  of  2014.
The respondents appeared through their counsel who  sought  time  to  comply
with the order and filed their counter affidavit.
Vide letter No. R.C. D-01-CC-12/2011/7030(S), the Government  of  Jharkhand,
Road Construction Department, issued a Notification dated 15.09.2014 to  one
of the complainants, the relevant portion of which reads thus:
"In compliance of the order dated 23.04.2014 of the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court
in Civil Appeal No. 4809 of  2014  @  SLP  (C)No.  266  of  2012,  State  of
Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors., the cabinet's  sanction  has  been
obtained in the meeting dated 11.09.2014 and   vide departmental  resolution
No. 6977  (S)  WE,  dated  15.09.2014,  services  of  Shri  Paras  Kumar  as
Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis, are hereby regularised from his date  of
joining i.e. 27.06.1987.
                                           By order of Governor of Jharkhand
                                                                        Sd/-
                                       Principal Secretary to the Government
                                                                  15.09.2014

      Similar notifications were also issued to all the other complainants.
 The complainants, on being aggrieved  by  the  partial  compliance  of  the
judgment and order of this Court dated 23.4.2014, have filed these  contempt
petitions and produced the Notifications sent by the respondents along  with
the affidavits. Mr. J.P. Cama, the learned senior counsel on behalf  of  the
complainants, has submitted that the respondents  have  not  fully  complied
with the judgment and order of this Court dated  23.04.2014  and  therefore,
they have wilfully disobeyed the order, which warrants  further  proceedings
against them. We have heard him as well as Mr.P.P. Rao, the  learned  senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the  complainants  has  invited  our
attention to  the  averments  made  in  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the
complainants before the High Court of Jharkhand along with the  prayer  made
by them under clause 'C' of the writ petition No. 2087 of 2010, wherein  the
complainants have prayed before the High Court  for  the  regularisation  of
their services on  the  said  posts  in  terms  with  the  conscious  policy
decision taken by the Notification No.  10113(s)  dated  11.09.2009  by  the
Cadre Controlling State of Bihar. The contents of the same read thus:
"(C)  Further for direction upon the respondents to  treat  the  petitioners
equally to that of similarly situated 120 persons appointed along  with  the
petitioners who fortuously remained working in the  territory  of  successor
State  of  Bihar  w.e.f.  15.11.2000  and  are  still  working  without  any
disturbance and accordingly to consider the petitioners  for  regularization
along with them in terms with  the  conscious  policy  decision  taken  vide
notification no. 10113 (s) dated 11.09.2009 by the Cadre  Controlling  State
of Bihar and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners  have  also  applied  for
the same and which is in active considerations."

He has further placed strong reliance upon the judgment  and  order  of  the
learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  in
support of his contention that the regularisation of  the  services  of  the
complainants was sought even in relation to the posts  of  Junior  Engineers
and averments have been made to that effect in the writ  petitions.  He  has
further adverted to the Division Bench judgment of the  High  Court  wherein
it is stated that the complainants have rendered 30 years  of  service  both
in the State Government of Bihar and Jharkhand. The learned  senior  counsel
has placed reliance upon certain paragraphs  from  the  aforesaid  judgment,
which read thus:
"25...............These persons continued in service for almost 30 years  by
the State Government (Bihar and Jharkhand both) not  under  any  stay  order
passed by any Court and these employees, after 30  years  of  their  service
how can be rendered jobless when not only  their  life  but  life  of  their
entire family is dependent  upon  this  job.  It  is  submitted  that  these
employees should compete with other eligible persons and  may  get  the  job
and in some of the cases Courts directed and the State  Governments  relaxed
the age."

                                 x x x x x x


29............At the cost of the repetition we may  mention  here  that  the
writ petitioners' eligibility at the time of appointment is not in  question
nor the conduct of these writ petitioners was questioned for  more  than  25
years by the State  Government  then  simply  because  that  there  is  some
indication in the order that competent authorities may  pass  any  order  in
relation to the services of  the  writ  petitioners,  the  State  Government
proceeded  to  issue  show-cause  notice  and  then  passed   the   order of
termination of services of these employees, which cannot be justified.


30. The contention of the  learned  Advocate  General  that  the  show-cause
notice is not without jurisdiction or it is  not  passed  by  the  authority
having no power are absolutely misplaced arguments in as much  as  that  the
State wanted to take a decision to dispense with the services  of  the  writ
petitioners then the State should have applied  its  mind  and  should  have
looked into all aspects including  why  their  services  are  sought  to  be
terminated/dispensed with after 30 years of their services from the time  of
their appointment on the post of Junior Engineers  and  why  their  services
cannot be regularized and who has created this irrevertible situation?"

He has further contended that with  regard  to  certain  factual  and  legal
aspects urged, the Division Bench of the  High  Court  at  para  33  of  its
judgment has passed the following order:
"33. In view of  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  the  LPA  is  allowed  and
impugned order dated 25.07.2011 is set aside. Interlocutory Application  No.
3223/2011 is allowed and the order of termination of services  of  the  writ
petitioners and the show-cause notice are quashed and the petitioners  shall
be entitled to all the consequential benefits also."

 The same was sought to be justified by the complainants' senior counsel  in
the Civil Appeal No.4809 of 2014, which relevant aspects have been  referred
to in the judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by this Court at paras 4  and  6,
which read thus:.
"4. The respondent-employees (the writ petitioners before the  High  Court),
were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of  Junior  Engineers
in the Rural Development Department in  the  erstwhile  State  of  Bihar  in
respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public  Service  Commission
(for short "the BPSC") was not required. It is the case  of  the  respondent
employees that they have continuously discharged their duties in  the  above
posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of  their  employer.  They
were  subsequently  appointed  on  ad-hoc  temporary  basis   as   Assistant
Engineers in the  pay-scales  of  Rs.  1000-50-1700/-  P.Ro-10-1820/-,  with
certain conditions on the basis of recommendation made by the  BPSC  against
temporary posts from the date of notification. Their services  as  Assistant
Engineers on ad-hoc basis were entrusted to work in  the  Road  Construction
Department where they were required to  contribute  their  work  within  the
stipulated period. The relevant condition No. 2  in  the  said  notification
No. Work/G/1-402/87,248/(S) Patna dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder:-
   "1. XXX XXX XXX
         2. This ad-hoc appointment shall be
       dependent on approval of Bihar Public
       Service Commission.
    3. XXX XXX XXX ......"
      It is their further case that they  have  been  working  in  the  said
posts for more than 29 years from the date of first  appointment  as  Junior
Engineers and 23 years from  the  appointment  in  the  posts  of  Assistant
Engineers on ad-hoc basis. Neither the BPSC nor Bihar State  Government  nor
Jharkhand State Government had intention to dispense with  the  services  of
these employees. Therefore, they did not take steps to dispense  with  their
services from their posts. The employees  approached  the  High  Court  when
they were issued the show cause notices dated  20.4.2010  by  the  appellant
No.3. After taking substantial work from the respondent-employees they  have
been harassed by issuing show cause notices asking them to show cause as  to
why their  services  should  not  be  terminated  on  the  ground  of  their
appointment to  the  posts  as  illegal/invalid.  Their  appointments  were,
however, not held to be invalid either by the orders of the  High  Court  or
Supreme  Court  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  199  posts  filled   up   by
advertisement No.128/1996 issued by the BPSC  dated  2.9.1996  as  the  same
would not  affect  the  respondent-employees  who  otherwise  have  been  in
continuous service for more than 23 years in the substantial posts  of  Road
Construction  Department  and   not   of   Rural   Engineering/Rural   Works
Department. Therefore, it was pleaded by  them  that  the  impugned  notices
issued to them was an empty formality with  preconceived  decision  and  the
same is also not only  discriminatory  but  also  suffers  from  legal  mala
fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is in utter transgression of  the
interim order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1001 of 2010  amounting
to overreaching the majesty of the High Court.
6. Further, direction was sought by the respondent employees from  the  High
Court in the Writ Petitions to treat them  equally  at  par  with  similarly
situated 120 persons appointed along with  them  who  fortuitously  remained
working in the territory of successor  State  of  Bihar  namely,  after  the
Jharkhand State was formed w.e.f. 15.11.2000  without  any  disturbance  and
consider their claim for regularization along with them in  terms  with  the
conscious Policy decision taken by it vide notification No.  10113(s)  dated
11.09.2009 by the Cadre Controlling State of Bihar and in pursuance  thereof
the respondent-employees have also applied for the  same  and  which  is  in
active consideration of the State of Jharkhand and further they  sought  for
issuance  of  a  writ  of  prohibition  restraining  the   appellants   from
termination of their services from their posts in pursuance of the  impugned
show cause notices as they had seriously apprehended in the  light  of  pre-
decisive and prejudicial findings  and  reasons  recorded  in  the  impugned
notices in the garb of order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No.  1001  of
2010, that their services might be terminated.  However,  the  fact  remains
that they are discharging their regular service to the appellants  (although
their posts are termed as ad-hoc in nomenclature) for  more  than  29  years
from the initial appointment as Junior Engineers since the year  1981  after
following due procedure of Advertisement etc. and their services  have  been
upgraded to the posts of Assistant Engineer  again  on  temporary  basis  in
1987  pursuant  to  Cabinet  decision  of  the  erstwhile  State  of   Bihar
Government  with  the  permission  of  BPSC   who   had   recognized   their
qualification of degree and experience. Therefore, their appointment to  the
posts is legal and valid from their date  of  inception  of  their  original
appointment as Junior Engineers in the erstwhile State Government  of  Bihar
stating that the appellants have been discharging their regular services  in
the respondent State although they  treated them as ad hoc  regular  service
in the respondent state their posts are termed as  ad  hoc  in  nomenclature
for more than 29 years from the  initial  appointment  as  Junior  Engineers
since the year 1981 and after following the procedure of advertisement  etc.
and their services have been upgraded to the posts  of  Assistant  Engineers
(Civil) again on temporary basis in 1987 pursuant to  the  Cabinet  decision
of the erstwhile  Bihar  Government  the  Bihar  Public  Service  Commission
(BPSC) which recognised their qualification of their experience........."

After noting the aforesaid relevant facts, as has been  urged  in  the  writ
petition proceedings and civil appeals before this  Court,  this  Court  has
passed the judgment and order dated 23.04.2014,  the  operative  portion  of
which is extracted above, in which the relief as prayed by the  complainants
was granted accordingly by this Court.
  Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the complainants  has  submitted
that the purport of the judgments and orders of  the  High  Court  and  this
Court are that the complainants are entitled  for  regularisation  in  their
posts from 1981, i.e. from the date  they  have  been  appointed  as  Junior
Engineers in the Department of the State Government  of  Jharkhand  and  the
said posts of the complainants have been upgraded to Assistant Engineers  by
giving them promotion, pursuant to the Cabinet decision.
  Therefore, he has prayed that they  are  entitled  for  regularisation  in
their posts from 1981, i.e. from the year they were initially  appointed  to
the said posts and not from 1987  as  has  been  notified  to  them  by  the
respondents in the above mentioned Notification as the same does not  amount
to full compliance of this Court's direction  issued  in  the  judgment  and
order  as  has  been  submitted  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
complainants.  Therefore,  he  has  urged  that  there  has  not  been  full
compliance of the operative portion  of  the  judgment  and  order  of  this
Court.
  On the other hand, Mr. P.P.  Rao,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
respondents  has  sought  to  justify  the  compliance  affidavit  and   the
Notifications produced along with  the  affidavit  by  contending  that  the
direction given by the High Court and this Court in  the  operative  portion
of the orders is that regularisation of the complainants'  services  in  the
posts of Assistant Engineers must be done by the respondents  and  the  same
has been complied with by them. He  has  further  contended  that  there  is
neither any specific prayer nor any direction in the judgment of the  single
Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court directing the  respondents  to
regularise their services to the posts of Junior  Engineers  from  the  year
1981. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that there is  a  wilful
disobedience on  the  part  of  the  respondents  on  which  these  contempt
proceedings could be initiated against them. In support of  this  contention
he has placed strong reliance upon the  judgments  of  this  Court,  wherein
this Court has laid down the  law  that  the  contempt  proceedings  can  be
maintained and proceedings can be initiated against the respondents  by  the
complainants only when there is a wilful disobedience of the  judgement  and
order by them. In support of the  above  legal  submissions  he  has  placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in  the  case  of  All  India  Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. L.K. Tripathi and Ors.[1], wherein this  Court
has held thus:

"64. In  Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v.  State of Bihar and  Ors. :  (1999)
7 SC 569, the Court outlined the object of its contempt jurisdiction in  the
following words:


"9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt,  civil  contempt
at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience  of  the
judgment or order of the court. Power  to  punish  for  contempt  is  to  be
resorted to when there is  clear  violation  of  the  court's  order.  Since
notice  of  contempt  and  punishment  for  contempt  is   of   far-reaching
consequence, these powers should be  invoked  only  when  a  clear  case  of
wilful disobedience  of  the  court's  order  has  been  made  out.  Whether
disobedience is wilful in  a  particular  case  depends  on  the  facts  and
circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to  be  properly  understood
and  complied  with.  Even  negligence  and  carelessness  can   amount   to
disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn  to  the
court's orders and its  implications.  Disobedience  of  the  court's  order
strikes at the very root  of  the  rule  of  law  on  which  our  system  of
governance is based. Power to punish  for  contempt  is  necessary  for  the
maintenance  of  effective  legal  system.  It  is  exercised   to   prevent
perversion of the course of justice.


x                 x               x


11. No person can  defy  the  court's  order. Wilful  would  exclude  casual
accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability  to  comply
with the terms of the order.  A  petitioner  who  complains  breach  of  the
court's order must allege deliberate or  contumacious  disobedience  of  the
court's order.""




   In  the  present  cases,  the  regularisation  of  the  services  of  the
complainants has been made from the respective dates i.e, from the  date  on
which they were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers from the  posts
Junior Engineers, in the absence of  any  specific  plea  or  any  direction
given in the impugned order  by  both  the  Courts  to  the  respondents  to
regularise the services of the complainants w.e.f.  1981  in  the  posts  of
junior Engineers.  Therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  is  a  wilful
disobedience of the judgment and order on the part of  the  respondents  and
that they have committed contempt of  this  Court.  Therefore,  the  learned
senior counsel for the respondents has requested  this  Court  to  drop  the
said proceedings.
   He further contends that if they are aggrieved by the  non-grant  of  the
regularisation of the services of the complainants to the said posts  w.e.f.
1981, they  are  required  to  initiate  appropriate  proceedings  before  a
competent Court of law and get such directions  issued  to  the  respondents
and therefore he has  prayed  to  drop  the  proceedings  by  accepting  the
compliance affidavit.
  We have heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of  both  the  parties.
With reference to the aforesaid rival  legal  contentions  urged  and  after
careful consideration of the averments made along with the  prayer  made  in
the writ petitions and on a perusal of the judgments and orders of both  the
High Court and this Court, we pass the following order:
      Our attention has been rightly invited by the learned  senior  counsel
for the complainants, Mr.J.P. Cama, to  the  pleadings  and  the  prayer  at
clause 'C' of the writ petition  before  the  High  Court  as  well  as  the
operative portion of the orders passed by the Division  Bench  of  the  High
Court dated 8.11.2011 and this Court dated 23.04.2014. We have  adverted  to
certain facts at paras 4 and 6 of the  judgment  dated  23.04.2014  of  this
Court with reference to the claim of the contempt  petitioners.  Though  the
complainants were initially appointed  to  the  services  in  the  erstwhile
State of Bihar, subsequently on  the  bifurcation  of  Bihar  and  Jharkhand
States, the services of these complainants  have  been  transferred  to  the
State of Jharkhand and they have been functioning as such in  the  posts  of
Assistant  Engineers.  Therefore,  the  contention  of  the  learned  senior
counsel, Mr. P.P. Rao, that the notification issued by the  erstwhile  Bihar
State cannot be applied to the complainants who have  been  transferred  and
fall under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State is  wholly  untenable  in
law for the  reason  that  prior  to  their  appointment  to  the  posts  of
Assistant Engineers in the State of Jharkhand, they  have  been  discharging
their duties similar to that of permanent Junior  Engineers  from  the  year
1981 in the erstwhile State of Bihar and therefore, treating their  services
as ad hoc, after promoting them to the said posts  of  Assistant  Engineers,
without giving them pay scale payable to the said  permanent  posts  in  the
State of  Jharkhand  is  erroneous  and  contrary  to  law.  Therefore,  the
contention urged in this regard by Mr. P.P. Rao cannot be accepted by us.
  The learned senior counsel on behalf  of  the  respondents  has  contended
that there are neither any pleadings nor any specific  prayer  in  the  writ
petitions filed by the complainants nor any specific directions  were  given
in the judgments and orders of both the High Court as well as this Court  to
the respondents to regularize the services of the complainants  with  effect
from 1981. The said contention cannot be accepted  by  this  Court  for  the
reason that it is contrary to the record and therefore, the same  is  wholly
untenable in law. The purport of the judgments and orders of the High  Court
as well as this Court makes  it  amply  clear  that  the  respondents  shall
regularize the services of the complainants with effect  from  1981  in  the
posts of Junior Engineers also.
  However, in our considered view, the reliance placed  upon  the  judgments
and orders of  the  High  Court  as  well  as  this  Court  do  support  the
contention  of  the  complainants  for  the  reason  that  there  is  wilful
disobedience  on  the  part  of  the  respondents  as  they  have  partially
fulfilled the direction given by this Court as well as the High  Court  with
regard to the regularization of the services of the  complainants  from  the
year 1987.
  However, further direction is issued to the respondents to regularise  the
services of the complainants from the date of their initial  appointment  as
Junior Engineers i.e. from the year 1981. Not complying with the  directions
issued by  this  Court  from  the  above  mentioned  year  would  amount  to
deprivation of the legitimate rights of the complainants  as  determined  by
the High Court and this Court in the judgments and orders.
   After taking the entire litigation, pleadings, documents  on  record  and
the  rival  legal  contentions  urged  on  behalf  of   the   parties   into
consideration, we direct the respondents  to  comply  with  the  above  said
direction after properly understanding the  purport  of  the  judgments  and
orders of the High Court as well as this Court.
    For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  give  one  more  opportunity  to  the
respondents to comply  with  the  judgments  and  orders  in  toto  for  the
regularization of the services of the complainants from the year 1981.   The
same cannot  be  treated  as  a  fresh  direction  issued  in  the  contempt
petitions to the respondents  as  we  have  indicated  the  purport  of  the
operative portion of the judgments and orders of the High Court as  well  as
this Court. The respondents shall comply with the order as  indicated  above
and submit their compliance report within four weeks from today.



        ..................................................................J.
                                        [V. GOPALA GOWDA]



        ..................................................................J.
                                     [C. NAGAPPAN]


New Delhi,
April 9, 2015

ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT     COURT NO.11               SECTION XVII

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 421/2014 In C.A. No. 4831/2014

GAURI SHANKAR PD RAI                              Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

SAJAL CHAKROBORTY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AND ORS                     Respondent(s)

WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 428/2014 In C.A. No. 4815/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 431/2014 In C.A. No. 4823/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 427/2014 In C.A. No. 4836/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 424/2014 In C.A. No. 4824/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 432/2014 In C.A. No. 4828/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 423/2014 In C.A. No. 4822/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 425/2014 In C.A. No. 4821/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 433/2014 In C.A. No. 4820/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 426/2014 In C.A. No. 4817/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 430/2014 In C.A. No. 4819/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 422/2014 In C.A. No. 4832/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 429/2014 In C.A. No. 4830/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 502/2014 In C.A. No. 4829/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 501/2014 In C.A. No. 4818/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 503/2014 In C.A. No. 4812/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 350/2014 IN C.A. No. 4809/2014

 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 547/2014 In C.A. No. 4810/2014

Date : 09/04/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of
JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s)
                     Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah,Adv.

                     Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
                     Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh,Adv.
                     Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
                        Md. Waquas, Adv.


            Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced  the  judgment  of
the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.
            We give one more opportunity to the respondents to  comply  with
the judgments and orders in toto for the regularization of the  services  of
the complainants from the year 1981.  The same cannot be treated as a  fresh
direction issued in the contempt petitions to the  respondents  as  we  have
indicated the purport of the operative portion of the judgments  and  orders
of the High Court as well as this Court. The respondents shall  comply  with
the order as indicated above and submit their compliance report within  four
weeks from today, in terms of the signed Non-Reportable Judgment.

            List the matters after four weeks.

    (VINOD KR.JHA)                              (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
      COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER
            (Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

-----------------------
[1]    (2009) 5 SCC 417


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.