Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1034 (ALL)

Swarn Kanti v. Kush Verma, Commissioner

2003-05-01

B.K.RATHI

body2003
JUDGMENT : B.K. RATHI, J. 1. The Petitioner was given seasonal appointment in the Food and Civil Supplies Department during the year 1980. She worked as Stenographer. However, her services were discontinued wherefore, she filed Writ Petition No. 10734 of 1996 in this Court which was dismissed. Against that order she preferred Special Appeal No. 329 of 1996 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.4.1996 by order Annexure-1 to this contempt petition. The following are the directions given in the special appeal. It is not disputed before us that though the Appellant was given a seasonal employment during 1980-81 she continued as Stenographer in the department till 18.8.1993 when she was denied to work. Therefore, it is not reasonable to hold that the Appellant is not entitled to the priority consideration for fresh employment on the basis of the Government order dated 13.10.1982. On consideration of the entire matter we dispose of this special appeal with the order that if the Appellant filed an application for appointment in the future vacancy of the post (Stenographer) in the department, her application will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982 (Annexure-1 to the stay application). 2. The grievance of the Petitioner that the above order have not been complied with and she has not been given appointment, therefore, she has filed the contempt petition. 3. Notice of the contempt petition was issued and counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The last counter-affidavit has been filed by V.V. Singh Bisen, Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U. P., Lucknow Opposite Party No. 2. He alleged that the order of this Court has been complied with. 4. I have heard Shri R. B. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire record as well as the order passed in this case. 5. It has been argued by Sri R. B. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of this Court has not been complied with in so far as that her application has not been considered by the competent authority for appointment in any vacancy caused after the order in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982. 6. 5. It has been argued by Sri R. B. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of this Court has not been complied with in so far as that her application has not been considered by the competent authority for appointment in any vacancy caused after the order in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982. 6. In reply Shri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has firstly argued that a fresh Writ Petition No. 44659 of 1998 seeking identical relief as was sought in the earlier Writ Petition No. 10734 of 1996, has been filed by the Petitioner. That, therefore, the matter will be considered in the writ petition and this contempt petition has become infructuous. This argument of the learned Counsel is not correct. The record of Writ Petition No. 44659 of 1998 has been attached with this contempt petition. This writ petition has been disposed of finally by order dated 15.3.1999 and it has been ordered that this writ petition shall be deemed to be an application in the contempt petition. Therefore, the writ petition has not become infructuous due to the filing of fresh writ petition. 7. Now coming to the merits of this case, it has been contended that wrong facts were pleaded in the writ petition, that in the order passed in special appeal, it has been mentioned that she continued as Stenographer in the Department till 18.8.1993. That in-fact it is not correct. That she worked in the Department till 1981 only. That the entire matter and the order of the High Court was considered in detail by Shri V.V. Bisen, opposite party No. 2 and he passed a detailed and speaking order which is Annexure-1 to his affidavit. It is further mentioned in the order that the Petitioner is not a retrenched employee as she was appointed in seasonal vacancy. 8. The other argument of the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 is that direction of the Court was to consider the application for appointment in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982 which was Annexure-1 to the stay application filed in the writ petition. The copy of that order has been filed and is Annexure-1 to the affidavit of Anil Kumar Srivastava, Deputy Regional Marketing Officer, Allahabad. It has been argued that the order of the Court was obtained on wrong facts. The copy of that order has been filed and is Annexure-1 to the affidavit of Anil Kumar Srivastava, Deputy Regional Marketing Officer, Allahabad. It has been argued that the order of the Court was obtained on wrong facts. This order dated 13.10.1982 is not a Government order. It is the order issued by the Food Commissioner which has already been withdrawn on 27.10.1999. It is, therefore, argued that appointment cannot be made in accordance with the order dated 13.10.1982. 9. It has also been argued that after considering the matter in detail, Shri V.V. Singh Bishen, opposite party No. 2 has concluded that the Petitioner cannot be illegally appointed. The direction of the Court was for consideration of the application for appointment of the Petitioner in future vacancy. The same has been considered. If the application for appointment has been illegally rejected and the order of the opposite party No. 2 is not a correct order, it can be challenged in a separate writ petition or other proper proceedings. 10. The direction of the Court has been complied with by considering the application for appointment and by recording a finding that the Petitioner cannot be illegally appointed. I, therefore, do not find any ground to punish the contemner under the contempt of the Court. The petition for contempt is dismissed.