Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1121 (JHR)

Ushman Ansari v. S. A. I. L.

2006-08-25

M.Y.EQBAL, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. All these Contempt Applications arise out of a common order dated 7th April, 1998 passed by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 161 of 1996(R) and L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996(R), wherein certain directions were given to Opposite party No. 2 for providing appointment to land losers. 2. While in some of the cases it is stated that the aforesaid judgment dated 7th April, 1998 has not been complied in letter and spirit, in rest of the cases, it is stated that the subsequent order passed in other Contempt proceeding arising out of the same judgment has not yet been complied. 3. From the earlier order passed by this Court and the enclosures, it will be evident that a panel of displaced persons was prepared in the year 1991 containing names of about 2010 persons. After hearing the parties in L.P.A Nos. 161 of 1996(R) and L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996(R), the following direction was issued by the Court: "Para-8". Both these appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforementioned scheme proposed by the Steel Authority with the following direction/observations: (i) The Steel Authority shall prepare a list containing names of displaced persons in accordance with Clause (1) of the proposed scheme within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment The list so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land & Rehabilitation, for verification, who shall get the bona fide of the status and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection therewith to the Steel Authority within three months from the date of receipt of the request for verification. The Steel Authority will thereafter hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the names of selected displaced persons within two months. (ii) The persons whose names are included in the panel will be placed in two categories according to the criteria already laid down and referred to hereinbefore. The persons in category No. (i) will be given employment first. Thereafter, those who are Included in category No. (ii) will be considered for employment. (iii) The persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ application prior to grant of stay order on 3.4.96 will be allowed to continue in service. The persons in category No. (i) will be given employment first. Thereafter, those who are Included in category No. (ii) will be considered for employment. (iii) The persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ application prior to grant of stay order on 3.4.96 will be allowed to continue in service. The persons from 1991 panel, who were issued appointment letter prior to 3.4.96 but could not joint service due to the aforementioned stay order, will also be allowed to join service, subject to verification of their status and fitness. 4. It appears that a number of contempt petitions were filed by one or other parties, alleging non compliance of the Court's orders, on the ground that they have not been appointed inspite of the order of the Court. It was pleaded that their names were appearing in the panel but they had not been appointed. One order was passed by the Court on 1St August, 2000 in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R) [Lal Bahadur Dubey v. B.N. Singh and Ors]. In the said case, taking into consideration the earlier order passed by the Court and the proposed scheme, the contempt application was disposed of with certain observations. 5. The opposite parties have taken a plea that the Court's order has been complied in letter and spirit, but this has been disputed by the petitioners. 6. It appears that a contempt petition was filed by one Bharat Prasad, being Contempt Case(C) No. 624 of 2005. In the said case, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Court's order dated 7th April, 1998 passed in L.P.A. Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996(R) was not complied and even the subsequent order dated 1St August, 2000 passed by Division Bench in MJ.C. No. 139 of /199(R) was not complied. Having noticed the stand taken by the opposite parties, this Court held that no case of contempt was made out and the said proceeding was dropped by judgment dated 24th January, 2006. 7. From a Division Bench order dated 20th August, 2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 and analogous Contempt Case(Civil) No. 362 of 2004, it appears that the same, matter fell for consideration before the Court. Therein, it was also alleged that all the land losers have not been provided with the employment inspite of the specific direction made by the Court. Therein, it was also alleged that all the land losers have not been provided with the employment inspite of the specific direction made by the Court. The Division Bench having noticed the fact that only six thousand posts of land losers were available but already about 15 thousand persons have been employed under that head, did not choose to initiate any contempt proceeding and the contempt proceeding was dropped, but opposite parties were warned to be careful in future. 8. In the facts and circumstances and there being disputed question of fact, whether all the posts have been filled up or not, we find no ground made out to initiate a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties. 9. The proceeding is dropped. All the applications stand disposed of. Application disposed of.