Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 642 (JHR)

Kamlesh Kumar Rai v. P. K. Jajhoria

2013-05-17

D.N.PATEL

body2013
ORDER By the Court.- This application has been preferred against alleged breach of the order passed by this Court dated 16th September, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 and also in breach of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 25 of 2011 dated 14th September, 2011. 2. Counsel for, the applicant submitted that initially this petitioner was employed as an Assistant Engineer in Sanjay Gandhi Co-operative Soot Mill Limited, Ranchi, in the year 1996. Thereafter, he was transferred on deputation by the State of Jharkhand in a Municipal Corporation in the year 2001, and, thereafter, he was transferred On deputation in the year 2007 at Mineral, Area Development Authority. The Mineral Area Development Authority had passed an order dated. 12th October, 2010 for repatriation of this petitioner in the Sanjay Gandhi Co-operative Soot Mill Limited, Ranchi. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 16th September. 2010. In para-7 of this order, this Court had given following directions : "7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Notification, dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure-11) is hereby quashed. The respondent-M.A.D.A. shall, however, be at liberty to take an appropriate decision if it intends finally to repatriate the petitioner's services to such existing unit, which could accept his services. Alternatively, the respondent-M.A.D.A./Urban Development Department may consider the possibility of absorbing the petitioner in its own services in accordance with the Rules of procedure." 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid order was slightly modified in L. P.A. No. 25 of 2011 and in para-5 of the order dated 14th September, 2011 of the said L.P.A., following are the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court :- "5. We do not find any illegality in the order impugned but we found from para-7 of the order that no such direction has been given but only it has been ordered that the MADA/Urban Development Department may consider the possibility of absorbing the writ petitioner in its own services in accordance with the Rules of procedure. We do not find any illegality in the order impugned but we found from para-7 of the order that no such direction has been given but only it has been ordered that the MADA/Urban Development Department may consider the possibility of absorbing the writ petitioner in its own services in accordance with the Rules of procedure. Therefore, so far as repatriation order is concerned, that was absolutely illegal and rest of the direction is only for consideration of the appellant in accordance with the Rules of procedure and to find out whether the services of the writ petitioner-respondent can be absorbed or not." 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondents have deliberately committed breach of this order and/or have not understood the aforesaid order and wrongly passed the order dated 31st January, 2012. The said order has been passed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents dated 18th January, 2013. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.4 State of Jharkhand, submitted that there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the respondents, neither of the order passed in the Writ Petition nor of the order passed in L.P.A. On the contrary, the order passed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 31st January, 2012, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit dated 18th January, 2013, is absolutely in consonance with law and in consonance with the directions given in the Writ Petition as well as in the L.P.A. and, therefore, the instant contempt application may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. it appears that earlier this petitioner had preferred W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 which was disposed of finally vide order dated 16th September, 2010 and the direction was given as stated herein above. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. it appears that earlier this petitioner had preferred W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 which was disposed of finally vide order dated 16th September, 2010 and the direction was given as stated herein above. Thereafter, L.P.A. No. 25 of 2011 was instituted by respondent No. 4 which was finally decide on 14th September, 2011 and in para-5 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the direction was that there is no question of repatriation by M.A.D.A to Sanjay Gandhi Co-operative Soot Mill Limited, Ranchi, but, so far as absorption is concerned, the decision may be taken by the respondent No.4 i.e. the Secretary, Urban Development Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, in accordance with Rules of procedures. Thus, it appears from para-7 of the order dated 16th September, 2010 in W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 as well as from para-5 of the order dated 14th September, 2011, passed in L.P.A., liberty was given to the respondent No.4 to pass an order in accordance with law so far as absorption of the original writ petitioner is concerned. Now, the question left out before this Court is to see whether the respondents have deliberately passed an order in violation of order dated 16.09.2010 in W.P. (S) No.5757 of 2009 (modified in L.P.A. No. 25 of 2011). 7. Looking to the order passed by the Secretary. Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 31st January, 2012 which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents dated 18th January, 2013, it appears that the decision has been taken in accordance with law by the Secretary of the concerned Department. The order has been passed by the Secretary as per his wisdom and as per his interpretation of law or rules or circulars. If the petitioner is disputing the legality and validity of the said order, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The order has been passed by the Secretary as per his wisdom and as per his interpretation of law or rules or circulars. If the petitioner is disputing the legality and validity of the said order, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. In view of the order passed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 31st January, 2012, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5757 of 2009 dated 16th September, 2010 (modified by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 25 of 2011 dated 14th September, 2011). Hence, this contempt application is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.