Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 182 (JHR)

Sachindra Nath Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-02-19

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2004
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In the connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 11462 of 2000(P) disposed of on 29th April, 2002 the Court noticed the following facts. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers against vacant posts in the year 1982-83. Their orders of appointment having been cancelled by the State, the petitioners moved before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 99/1985, 485/ 1985 and analogous cases. The orders of cancellation of appointment of petitioners were stayed by the Patna High Court vide its order dated 21st January, 1985/5th February, 1985 and other orders. In view of interim order of stay, petitioners continued to function as Assistant Teachers without any break. Some of the petitioners, who were untrained, were also sent for training by the State between 12th May, 1991 and 5th February, 1994. Subsequently, they were, reappointed in view of Supreme Courts direction on 4th April. 2000. 3. Similarly situated persons whose services were also terminated and in whose favour the Court issued the order of stay and those who continued to function, some of them were also reappointed vide Memo No. 9619 dated 26th December, 1995 and Memo Nos. 5938-6000 dated 15th July, 1997. In their orders of reappointment, one of the terms and conditions was shown that their pay will be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn, as per the Supreme Courts order. Similar condition as mentioned in the cases of petitioners at Clause-viii of their order of reinstatement dated 4th April, 2000. They were also informed that their pay will be fixed as per order of the Supreme Court. But in spite of the same, pay of the petitioners were not fixed taking into consideration last pay drawn by them. 4. The aforesaid averments made by petitioners were not disputed by the opposite parties. After disposal of the case when the respondents disposed of the claim rejected it on one of the grounds that there were no post vacant prior to order of reinstatement of petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners cannot derive the benefit of Supreme Courts order. 5. The aforesaid stand taken by the opposite parties being not satisfactory, on 22nd January, 2004 this Court observed that the Court was not satisfied with the ground(s) shown in Memo No. 61 dated 17th January, 2004 and the letter No. 01 dated 12th September, 2004. 6. In pursuance of Courts order Mr. 5. The aforesaid stand taken by the opposite parties being not satisfactory, on 22nd January, 2004 this Court observed that the Court was not satisfied with the ground(s) shown in Memo No. 61 dated 17th January, 2004 and the letter No. 01 dated 12th September, 2004. 6. In pursuance of Courts order Mr. Vaidehi Sharan Mishra, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur Mr. Vidyapati Das, the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur; and Mrs. Aprajita Jha, the then District Superintendent of Education (at present District Education Officer, Pakur) are present. The Deputy Commissioner tried to impress that there was no post vacant prior to the order of reinstatement of petitioners but such stand has been taken by officer without going through the records relating to vacancy. 7. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed against vacant posts in the year, 1982-83 against which they continued to function even after 1985 in pursuance of interim order passed by High Court. It continued without any break till the orders of reinstatement were issued on 4th April, 2000. 8. In the facts and circumstances, as it appears that the officers are trying to mislead the Court, let a contempt proceeding be initiated against Mr. Vaidehi Sharan Mishra, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, Mr. Vidyapati Das, the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur; and Mrs. Aprajita Jha, the District Education Officer, Pakur. 9. Mrs. Aprajita Jha, the District Education Officer Pakur has already been impleaded as opposite party No. 3 to the contempt application. The petitioner is permitted to implead Mr. Vaidehi Sharan Mishra, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and Mr. Vidyapati Das, the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur as opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 respectively to the contempt application. 10. The opposite party Nos. 3, 5 and 6 who are present in the Court are allowed three weeks time to file show cause as to why they be no punished for misleading the Court and for willful disobedience of the Courts order. It will be open to them to appear in person or through lawyer which they may engage at their own cost. 11. Let the case be placed for further hearing under the heading for orders on 9th April, 2004 when the opposite party Nos. 3, 5 and 6 shall remain present in the Court. 12. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary S.C. III.