Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 680 (RAJ)

Bhairon Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

1998-05-15

J.C.VERMA

body1998
Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner is said to have been appointed initially as Nakedar in Gram Panchayat Bagru Kalan Panchayat Samiti Sanganer in the year 1976. He had been working as Nakedar-cum-Works Secretary from December 1976 to December 1978. As per resolution of the Gram Panchayat, it is alleged, that initially he was appointed as temporary Chungi Nakedar, then Panchayat was con- verted into Municipal Board w.e.f. 18.8.1980. After about 1-1/2 years of being converted into Municipal Board vide order dated 27.2.1982 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Sub-Nakedar. Being aggrieved the petitioner ultimately filed a civil writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/83 which was decided by this Court on 13.10.1992. It was stated in the earlier writ petition that number of persons were appointed on regular basis as Nakedar during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, showing that the vacancies of Nakedar were available but still the petitioner was reverted to the post of Sub-Nakedar. After going through the respective submissions made by the parties, the court had held that there was no justification or explanation with the Municipal Board to have reverted the petitioner as Sub-Na- kedar. The High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2174/83 had set aside the order dated 27.2.1982 by which order the petitioner had been reverted to the post of Sub-Nakedar. It was held that the order dated 27.2.1982 was un- constitutional and further direction was give to the respondents to put back the petitioner on the post of Nakedar within a period of four months and also to pay all the consequential re- liefs within three months thereafter. (2). The order was not complied with with the result a contempt petition was filed. Certain observations were made by the Honble Judge who had heard the contempt petition but the Honble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14350/95 decided on 28.7.1995 had observed that any observations made in disposing of the contempt petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner for indicating his rights. (3). Despite the fact the order against the petitioner reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Nakedar was set aside as back as on 13.10.1992, the petitioners case was not dealt with in accordance with law. (3). Despite the fact the order against the petitioner reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Nakedar was set aside as back as on 13.10.1992, the petitioners case was not dealt with in accordance with law. Compelled by such inaction and omission on the part of the respondents, the petitioner moved the present writ petition claiming, herein, that the petitioner should have been fixed in the pay scale of Nakedar from 1.4.1981 with all consequential benefits i.e. yearly grade increments, benefit of revision of pay scale attached to the post of Nakedar and arrears of fixation as well. It is stated that despite the order having been passed which had become final the petitioner had to send a notice for initiating the contempt proceedings to the non- petitioner No.3 through his Advocate. The order dated 13.10.1992 was not complied with resulting in filing of the contempt petition. The petitioner submits that the respondents did not comply with the order on a totally lame excuse that the respondents were not able to understand the order of the High Court dated 13.10.1992 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/83 and thus this present petition had to be filed as a matter of fact for getting the earlier order of the High Court executed. (4). Even though it is mentioned that vide Annexure-1 dated 13.7.1993 the petitioner was already put on the job of Nakedar but no previous benefit what-so- ever has been awarded to the petitioner. The Municipal Board vide Annexure-5 dated 26.2.1996 had informed the petitioner through his Advocate that no action is required to be taken on the part of the Municipal Board in this regard. (5). Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the absorption of the petitioner as Sub-Nakedar was set aside in the writ peti- tion No. 2174/83 and the order dated 27.2.1982 was set aside. It is stated that the consequential relief was allowed by the High Court. (5). Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the absorption of the petitioner as Sub-Nakedar was set aside in the writ peti- tion No. 2174/83 and the order dated 27.2.1982 was set aside. It is stated that the consequential relief was allowed by the High Court. In the written statement filed by the respondents much reliance is being placed on the observations made by the learned Single Judge when the contempt petition No. 451/93 was not entertained by the Honble Judge by observing that the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/ 83 did not indicate that the petitioner should have been regularised with retrospective effect or should have been given back wages for the period during which he had not worked as Nakedar. Admittedly, the Honble Supreme Court had categorically observed that any such observations made in the contempt petition shall not stand in his way in vindicating his rights. It is stated that the recommendations were made by the selection committee on 23.4.1991 as per Annexure-4 and the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Nakedar on substantive post w.e.f. 1.6.1983 vide Annexure R-5 and for the reason that Annexure R-4 and R-5 are not being challenged, the petitioner is not entitled to relief as claimed. However, it is stated that the petitioner had been absorbed on the post of Nakedar vide order dated 13.7.1993 with conse- quential benefits. It is stated that though the order dated 27.2.1982 was set aside in the earlier writ petition, but the petitioner was subsequently recommended for absorption on the post of Sub-Nakedar from June 1983 and, therefore, even if any benefit had accrued to the petitioner in the order of the Honble Judge passed on 13.10.1992, that benefit could not be sustained because of the subsequent order passed by the Board. (6). To know how the case of the petitioner has been dealt with after passing of the judgment by this court on 13.10.1992, the counsel for the respondent Municipal Board has produced the record. The copy of the order was placed by the petitioner before the Execution Officer of Municipal Board Bagru on 28.10.1992 along with the representations made by the petitioner to the respondents for giving effect to the judgment of this court. The copy of the order was placed by the petitioner before the Execution Officer of Municipal Board Bagru on 28.10.1992 along with the representations made by the petitioner to the respondents for giving effect to the judgment of this court. A letter has been written by the Executive Officer to the Chairman, Local Self Bodies seeking guidance as to what is to be done in regard to the order passed by this court in writ petition no. 2174/83. Vide another letter dated 16.9.1993 the Director had been informed that the compliance has been made whereas no compliance has been made by any of the respondents and the order of the High Court was not given effect to. (7). Being faced with this situation, the counsel appearing for the Director, Local Bodies was fair enough to say that the order dated 13.10.1992 was to be com- plied with in letter and spirit and the petitioner was entitled to the post of Nakedar as he was continuing prior to 27.2.1982, but he had been given the post from 1993. The counsel for the Municipal Board submits that the Board had been writing to the Director for guidance in this regard as financial implications were involved,but the Director had failed to give any guidance and, therefore, there was no fault of the Board. Even though the submissions are being made by shifting responsibility by one respondent to another respondent, but no such stand was taken in the written statement. The fact remains that the order of the High Court remained un-executed and not complied with, with the result that the present writ petition has been filed for the implementation. (8). No interpretation was required to be given or was required to be taken from any quarter by any of the respondent for interpreting the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/83. The petitioner was working as Nakedar when he was reverted back by order dated 27.2.1982. The order of reversion or posting the petitioner as Sub-Nakedar was set aside in Writ Petition No. 2174/83, meaning thereby, the peti- tioner was to be put in his original position as Nakedar with all consequential reliefs, monitory and otherwise, that has not been done. The petitioner was working as Nakedar when he was reverted back by order dated 27.2.1982. The order of reversion or posting the petitioner as Sub-Nakedar was set aside in Writ Petition No. 2174/83, meaning thereby, the peti- tioner was to be put in his original position as Nakedar with all consequential reliefs, monitory and otherwise, that has not been done. Instead of complying with the order further resolutions were being passed during the pendency of the writ petition to give effect to the order of the High Court from 1993 and the petitioner was taken back as Nakedar in 1993 but even up till today he has not been awarded any consequential reliefs even though in the written statement it is so averred. It is admitted case of the petitioner that neither the petitioner has been given the post of Nakedar after the order dated 27.2.1982 was set aside nor any consequential reliefs have been paid. Rather, the respondent Municipal Board is concerned on the implications of the financial liability which were to be borne because of certain order of reversion and posting as Sub-Nakedar. (9). The petitioner had to under-take number of litigations. First he filed a writ petition in the year 1983 which was decided in the year 1992. The order in the writ petition was not complied with as stipulated in the writ petition itself. He had to file a contempt petition. The contempt petition was not entertained and certain obser- vations were made by the learned Judge in regard to consequential reliefs which observations were ordered to be ignored by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the petitioner. Again the petitioner had to approach in a contempt petition, but that was perhaps not entertained because it was observed that contempt cannot be used as a lever for execution. Forced and compelled by the circumstances and non-action/omission on the part of the respondents, once again the present petition has been filed, not for determination of any right but with the prayer that the right already conferred on him by the High Court should be implemented. The conduct of both the respondents is not appreciatable. It was foremost duty of the respondents to have given effect to the order of the High Court without any hesitation if the order was not challenged and had become final. The conduct of both the respondents is not appreciatable. It was foremost duty of the respondents to have given effect to the order of the High Court without any hesitation if the order was not challenged and had become final. Record also does not show that any effort has been made to implement the order. The matter remains pending for years together. It is a matter of concern for judiciary itself and by all means officers concerned are bound by the orders passed by the courts and no rider or interpretation is required to be given to such clear orders. The respondents have miserably failed to respect the orders of the court. It was very clear that once the order dated 27.2.1982 had been set aside, the petitioner was entitled to be put in a situation as if no such order had been passed and that would only be done if the petitioner would have been put on the post of Nakedar with all consequential reliefs i.e. the increment and revision of pay scale etc. etc. (10). For the reasons mentioned above, there is no alternative but to accept the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order of this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/83 and consider the petitioner as Nakedar as if he was never reverted to the post of Sub-Nakedar and to award him all consequential reliefs including the pay fixation, increment and seniority etc. under the rules. (11). For the reasons the petitioner had been dragged into un- necessary litigations for obtaining a direction similar and identical for implementation of the order which had already bee passed by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2174/83 decided on 13.10.1992, it is a fit case where the respondents shall be burdened with heavy costs of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be equally shared by the office of the Director, Local Bodies and the Municipal Board, because of the reason that it was the duty of the Chairman/Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to have complied with the order of this court and act according to the law. In this case it shall be ap- propriate that the cost imposed on the Municipal Board should be borne equally by the Chairman and the Executive Officer and the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. (12). In this case it shall be ap- propriate that the cost imposed on the Municipal Board should be borne equally by the Chairman and the Executive Officer and the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. (12). The writ petition is allowed as per the above directions.