Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 450 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal v. Shri O. P. Meena

1994-05-26

R.S.KEJRIWAL

body1994
Honble KEJRIWAL, J. — The services of the petitioner who was Conductor in Rajasthan Statate Road Transport Corporation, were terminated vide order dated 15.5.1986, by the non-petitioners.This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit in the Court of A.C.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was decreed by the said Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.9.1989 and the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was quashed. On account of setting-aside of the termination order, the petitioner was reinstated by the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.9.1989, which was allowed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 26.7.1983. Against this judgment and decree, the petitioner filed Civil Second Appeal No. 196/1993. He also filed stay Application No. 102/1993. On the Stay application, this Court on 10.8.1993, passed the following order: — "After, the decision of the appellate Court there is every likelihood that the respondents may terminate the services of the appellant. In this view of the matter, I deem it just and proper to order that the status-quo-ante as it exists till the date of the decision of the first appeal on 26.7.1993, shall be maintained and the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service." (2). The petitioner submitted a copy of the said order to the Non- petitioner No.2, but he did not pay any heed and the services of the petitioner were again terminated by the Non-petitioner No.2, vide his order dated 16.9.1993. The petitioner on 29.9.1993, served a Notice on the Non-petitioner and prayed that termination order dated 16.9.1993, be withdrawn within three days from the date of receipt of Notice, failing which the petitioner would be compelled to file a contempt application. When nothing was done by the non-petitioners, the petitioner filed the present contempt application and prayed that as the Non-petitioners wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 10.9.93, they be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Notice of this application was issued to the Non-petitioners, who filed reply of the same.The Non-petitioners did not deny this fact that they reinstated the petitioner when the suit of the petitioner was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.9,1989. Notice of this application was issued to the Non-petitioners, who filed reply of the same.The Non-petitioners did not deny this fact that they reinstated the petitioner when the suit of the petitioner was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.9,1989. In para No.5 of the reply, the non-petitioners alleged that the contempt application had been filed in haste by the petitioner as the order of this Court dated 10.9.1993, did not become final. The petitioner should have waited till the confirmation of order. It has been further mentioned that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, could not be invoked in such circumstances. (3). In Para No.7 of the reply the non-petitioners mentioned that the petitioner did not give any date when the petitioner submitted a copy of the order of High Court. In Para No. 9 of their reply, the non-petitioners mentioned that the contents mentioned in para No.9 of the Contempt Application were wrong and illegal. In Para No.2 of the additional pleas, the non-petitioners mentioned that the contempt of court proceedings were only available to the petitioner when there was no other equal efficacious remedy. it has been further mentioned that the proceedings of Contempt of Court could be initiated only after the confirmation of the order dated 10.9.1993. It was prayed that the contempt application be dismissed with costs. (4). Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon. Court vide its order dated 10.9.1993, specifically directed the non-petitioners to maintain status-quo-ante as it existed till the date of the decision of the first appeal on 26.7.1993. It further directed the non-petitioners-contemners to continue the petitioner in service. This order was served on the Non-petitioner No.2 but still after service of the order, the Non-petitioner No.2 passed order dated 16.9.1993, terminating the services of the petitioner. When the petitioner received letter dated 16.9.1993, a Notice dated 26.9.1993 was served through his counsel asking the non-petitioners to with-draw their termination order, still the non-petitioners did not withdraw the said order. The non- petitioners did not deny the fact of receipt of Notice served by counsel of the petitioner but took a plea that till the order passed by this Court dated 10.9.1993 is confirmed, the petitioner cannot be reinstated. The non- petitioners did not deny the fact of receipt of Notice served by counsel of the petitioner but took a plea that till the order passed by this Court dated 10.9.1993 is confirmed, the petitioner cannot be reinstated. This amounts to a wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and as such both the non-petitioners deserve to be punished under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (5). On the other hand, Shir P.C. Jain, counsel for the non- petitioners submits that the order of this Court dated 10.9.1993, was only an interim order. It was not confirmed and as such till the order is confirmed, the petitioner can not be reinstated. The non-petitioner did not commit any wilful disobedience. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in State of J and K vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others (1). The facts of this case were that in writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court on March,19.1990, passed an interim order directing Notice to be issued to the respondent in the writ petition as also in the stay matter with a direction that the case would be listed in the second week of May 1990. The High Court further directed the Government, to give 50% of the timber to the writ petitioner on his furnishing a bond. On April 2, 1990, the writ petitioner initiated proceedings of Contempt of Court on the ground that the Government did not give 50 percent of timber to the writ petitioner as per directions of the High Court dated March 19, 1990. Notice of this Contempt Petition was issued to the respondents. The respondents challenged the initiation of contempt proceedings. The Apex Court was of the view that direction of the High Court was not for maintenance of status- quo; nor was it a restraint order on the State authorities forbidding them from taking any step to which the writ petitioner could have an objection but was a direction in the nature of mandatory injunction made by the High Court at the interim stage. In my view, this judgment is totally distinguishable and is not relevant to the facts of the present case. In my view, this judgment is totally distinguishable and is not relevant to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the High Court vide its order dated 10.9.1993, directed the non- petitioners to maintain status-quo as it existed on 26.7.1993 and to continue the petitioner in service. It is also not in dispute that on 26.7.1993, when the appeal of the non-petitioners was allowed, the petitioner was in service of the non-petitioners. His services were terminated vide order dated 16.9.1993, when the non-petitioners were informed of the stay order. Not only this, when the petitioner received the order dated 16.9.1993, terminating his services, he served a Notice on the Non- petitioners dated 29.9.1993, requesting them for with drawing the termination order but instead of withdrawing the termination order the non-petitionerd in their reply and also in their arguments took a strange plea that unless the stay order is confirmed, the petitioner can not be reinstated. Mr. Jain further submits that the Non-petitioners had no intention to defy the orders to this Court. They were under the impression that unless the ad-interim order dated 10.9.1993, is confirmed, the petitioner can not be reinstated or can not be allowed to continue in service. In support of his arguments, Mr. Jain placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in Ashok kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Bijar and others (2). This case is also totally distinguishable and not relevant to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the State Government mis-interpreted executive directions and there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the Courts order. In the present case, the petitioner informed the Non-petitioner No.2 regarding the stay order dated 10.9.1993, and when the non-petitioners terminated the services of the petitioner after passing of the stay order, the petitioner through his counsel again requested-the non-petitioners for with- drawing the termination order. Even after service of Notice of the Contempt application, the non-petitioners instead of reinstating the petitioner with retrospective date, contested the contempt application, with out any reasonable ground and thus in my view wilfully disobeyed the order dated 10.9.1993.Under these circumstances both the non-petitioners deserve to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both the contemners are punished till rising of Court and with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. Both the contemners are punished till rising of Court and with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The non-petitioners are further directed to reinstate the petitioner w.e.f. 16.9.1993, when his services were terminated with all back wages, within a period of seven days from today. (6). A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and also to the Secretary (Transport), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.