Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1585 (HP)

Jodh Singh v. Rohit Jamwal

2016-08-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common facts and law are involved, therefore, both the Contempt Petitions are taken up together for final adjudication. 2. By way of contempt petition No. 4295 of 2013 titled Jodh Singh Versus Rohit Jamwal, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short the Act) for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful non-compliance of orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012, passed in CWP No. 5557 of 2012, titled Jodh Singh versus H.P. State Electricity Board. 3. By way of COPC No. 195 of 2016, titled Inder Singh Verma versus Tarun Shridhar and others, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court since, as alleged, the respondents have willfully disobeyed the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1777 of 2013, decided on 16.5.2015. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Jodh Singh filed CWP bearing No. 5557 of 2012 in this Hon’ble High Court praying therein inter-alia for the following reliefs:- “That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Board to regularize the services of the petitioners as Assistant Accounts Officer with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of the petitioner or at least from the date of his completing two years of service on contract basis as Assistant Account Officer including seniority, on the same analogy on which the Respondent-Board has regularized the services of Assistant Engineers appointed on contract basis like the petitioners’ etc. etc.” 5. Pursuant to the notices issued by the writ Court, respondents filed their respective replies. However, this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2012, passed following orders:- “Notice in above terms. Till further orders, promotion to the regular post of Assistant Accounts Officer be not made, without prior permission of this Court. List after four weeks.” 6. Subsequently, matter again came up before the writ Court on 27.8.2012, wherein Court was pleased to clarify/modify the order dated 16.7.2012 as under:- “The order dated 16.7.2012 is clarified to the effect that only after considering the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer, it will be open to the respondent to make further promotions..” 7. Subsequently, matter again came up before the writ Court on 27.8.2012, wherein Court was pleased to clarify/modify the order dated 16.7.2012 as under:- “The order dated 16.7.2012 is clarified to the effect that only after considering the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer, it will be open to the respondent to make further promotions..” 7. The orders supra have not been allegedly complied with by the respondents, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the instant Contempt Petition. 8. Careful perusal of the averments contained in the contempt petition No.4295 of 2013 suggests that neither case nor claim of the petitioner was considered by the respondents in terms of order dated 27.8.2012, rather vide office order No.362 HPSEB (SECTT)/2013, dated 19.10.2013, it was ordered that Assistant Account Officer (for short ‘AAO’) mentioned in the order would look after the work of the post of Accounts Officer (for short ‘AO’) against available vacancies in the offices. As per the petitioner, aforesaid order dated 19.10.2013, passed by respondent is a clear violation of order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified vide order dated 27.8.2012 because no permission/approval whatsoever, was taken by the respondent from the Hon’ble Court before passing the aforesaid order No. 362, dated 19.10.2013. Petitioner has further alleged that after passing of order No.362, dated 19.10.2013, respondent further vide office order No. 363 HPSEB (SECTT)/2013, dated 19.10.2013 ordered/made an arrangement by way of which Superintendent (DA), which were 13 in number, as mentioned in the aforesaid order, were ordered to look after the work of the post of ‘AAO’ against available vacancies in the offices. Petitioner has further submitted that both the aforesaid office orders were passed by the respondents without prior approval/permission of the Court and as such, they have flouted the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012, passed by this Court. The petitioners in both the contempt petitions have specifically stated that since respondents have committed willful disobedience, are required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. In the aforesaid background, this Court, while examining the correctness and genuineness of the averments contained in the present contempt petition, is required to ascertain whether order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified vide order dated 27.8.2012 was strictly adhered to and complied with by the respondents or not. 9. In the aforesaid background, this Court, while examining the correctness and genuineness of the averments contained in the present contempt petition, is required to ascertain whether order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified vide order dated 27.8.2012 was strictly adhered to and complied with by the respondents or not. Careful perusal of the order dated 16.7.2012 suggests that direction was issued to the respondents not to make promotion to the post of ‘AAO’ till further order without prior permission of the Court. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.8.2012, this Court had further clarified that only after considering the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as ‘AAO’, it will be open for the respondents to make further promotions, meaning thereby, vide order dated 27.8.2012, writ Court allowed the respondents to go ahead with the promotions to the post of ‘AAO’ but subject to the condition that at first instance case of the petitioner would be considered for regular appointment as ‘AAO’. Since order dated 16.7.2012 was further modified on 27.8.2012, this Court only has to ascertain whether order dated 27.8.2012 was complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents or not. 10. Pursuant to the notices dated 11.12.2013 issued in the present contempt petition, respondents filed reply to the petition explaining their position. The Additional Secretary HPSEB Limited, on her affidavit filed reply to the contempt petition, wherein before rendering explanation, if any, for passing office orders No. 362 and 363, dated 19.10.2013 without obtaining the permission of this Court tendered her sincerest un-conditional apology for the alleged disobedience of the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012, passed by writ Court in CWP No.5557 of 2012. The aforesaid respondent specifically submitted in her reply that there was no motive or design to disrespect and disobey the orders and directions of this Court in any way. It has been further stated that the respondent has not, wittingly or unwittingly, tried to lower the majesty and grandeur of this Court or violated Court orders supra. Aforesaid respondents specifically stated in para-7 of reply that order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified on 27.8.2012, passed by this Court duly stands complied with. It has been further stated that the respondent has not, wittingly or unwittingly, tried to lower the majesty and grandeur of this Court or violated Court orders supra. Aforesaid respondents specifically stated in para-7 of reply that order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified on 27.8.2012, passed by this Court duly stands complied with. As per aforesaid respondents, pursuant to the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012, passed by this Court in CWP No. 5557 of 2012 as well as order dated 8.1.2013 passed in CWP No. 5128 of 2012, titled as Ram Krishan and another Versus HPSEB Limited, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the “Service Committee” in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 for considering the regularization of services of 12 numbers ‘AAO’ including the petitioner engaged on contract basis in HPSEB Limited. The Service Committee, as referred above, in its meeting held on 1.2.2013, taking note of Col.15 A(1)(a) of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by the HPSEB Limited and circulated vide notification dated 1.11.2006 for the post of ‘AAO’, wherein it is provided that ‘AAO’ will be engaged/appointed on contract basis initially for the period of one year, which may be extendable on year to year basis depending upon their work and their job considered the case of petitioner alongwith other ‘AAO’. As per the mandate of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, referred to above, annual performance report is required to be maintained by the Chief Accounts Officer for the assessment of the work in order to make recommendations for regular appointment after completion of minimum 2 years contractual service. 11. The reply filed by the respondents also reveals that as per Clause-IV(3) of Regulation -15(A), period of two years is the minimum eligibility period after which case of contract employee can be considered for regular appointment. Similarly, sub-para-VI(3) of col. 15A of the R&P Regulations also provide that contract employees will not have any right to claim regularization. As per respondents, there is no legal right of these officers to claim regularization after 2 years, which is only the minimum eligibility criteria for regularization. The Service Committee further observed that the HPSEB Limited being a government owned company broadly follows the State Government Policy for regularization of contract employees. As per respondents, there is no legal right of these officers to claim regularization after 2 years, which is only the minimum eligibility criteria for regularization. The Service Committee further observed that the HPSEB Limited being a government owned company broadly follows the State Government Policy for regularization of contract employees. It was concluded in the meeting of Service Committee that in case regularization of these contract employees ‘AAO’ is considered, there may be similarly situated cases for regularization of other contract employees amongst the Class-III and Class-IV categories of employees in the HPSEB Limited. 12. Respondents by way of reply specifically stated that vide order dated 27.8.2012, it was clarified that only after considering the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as ‘AAO’, it will be open to the respondents to make further promotions and as such, since claim of the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons stand considered by the competent Authority and decided by passing a speaking/reasoned order dated 14.11.2013, there is no defiance of the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012. The aforesaid respondents also submitted that orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012 stand duly complied with in letter and spirit and as such, contempt petition deserves to be rejected. 13. The respondents also placed on record order passed by HPSEB Ltd. in terms of the order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified on 27.8.2012 by way of Annexure RA-1. 14. Record further reveals that the petitioner being dissatisfied with the explanation rendered by the respondents in the shape of reply/affidavit, filed rejoinder, refuting therein the stands taken by the respondents in their reply to the contempt petition. The petitioner again reiterated that the respondents passed the orders of promotion of some of the persons, who were AAO’ as ‘AO’ and Superintendents (DA) on regular basis without deciding the case of the petitioner and without obtaining prior approval of this Court, which clearly indicates that the respondents had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions contained in orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012 passed by writ Court. 15. To substantiate aforesaid submissions having been made on behalf of the petitioner, certain documents have been also placed on record alongwith the rejoinder to demonstrate that the case of the petitioner was never placed before the Service Committee and as such, there is a willful disobedience of the orders passed by writ Court. 15. To substantiate aforesaid submissions having been made on behalf of the petitioner, certain documents have been also placed on record alongwith the rejoinder to demonstrate that the case of the petitioner was never placed before the Service Committee and as such, there is a willful disobedience of the orders passed by writ Court. The petitioner specifically stated in the rejoinder that the claim of the petitioner by the Service Committee was allegedly rejected on 14.11.2013, whereas meeting of the Service Committee was already held on 1.2.2013, which suggests that order dated 14.11.2013 was passed by the respondents to evade the contempt proceedings. 16. The petitioner also in para-6 of his rejoinder reiterated that his case was never placed before the Service Committee, rather case of 11 persons, who had filed CWP No.5128 of 2012 was placed before the Committee, as clearly emerge from the minutes of the meetings i.e. Annexure C-6. The petitioner also pointed out that the matter of the petitioner in CWP No.5128 of 2012 was placed before the Service Committee in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 8.1.2013, wherein present petitioner is not a party and his case is covered under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, which provides 3% quota fixed for the persons with disability. The petitioner specifically stated that he had applied for the post reserved for disabled person with low vision in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7.10.2009 and as such, it cannot be said that his case was considered by the Service Committee as being projected by the respondents in their reply. 17. This Court after perusing the reply/affidavit as well as rejoinder thereto filed by the respondents and petitioner further directed the respondents vide order dated 19.6.2014 to file supplementary affidavit specifically indicating therein as to whether petitioner has been recruited under 3% quota reserved for the persons with disabilities or otherwise. Pursuant to the directions contained in order dated 19.6.2014, respondents filed supplementary affidavit specifically stating therein that HPSEB limited had intended to fill in 14 posts of AAOs on contract basis as per the provisions contained in Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, accordingly, a requisition was sent to the Public Service Commission for undertaking the selection process and on the basis of grade, make recommendation of the candidates for appointment on contract basis. After following the process of recruitment, the Public Service Commission recommended the names of the candidates, including the petitioner, for their appointment as AAOs. The respondents also stated in the affidavit that the cadre of the ‘AAO’ against the direct recruitment quota is of 14 persons. 3% posts are to be reserved against the said direct recruitment quota to the persons with disability. The respondents further stated that as per 100% roster point applicable at the time of recruitment of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, first point fell to the category of physically handicapped persons under 3% quota posts and as such, recruitment of the petitioner was made against the aforesaid quota/roster point on contract basis as per the provisions of the R& P Regulations. The respondents also stated that no post in the cadre of ‘AAO’ against 3% quota is lying vacant at present in the organization of the replying respondents. The respondents specifically stated that at the time of considering the case of contractual employees for regularization, the case of the petitioner would also be considered as per the policy. 18. Subsequent to aforesaid, petitioner filed CMP bearing No. 4728 of 2016 in COPC No. 4295 of 2013 for bringing on record additional facts and discrepancies which have further aggravated the contempt on the part of the respondents. By way of present application, petitioner brought on record some new facts by stating that the petitioner’s case is covered under two categories, firstly the petitioner being handicapped person having low vision (40%) disability should have been given employment under 3% quota as per the Disability Act, secondly, as per R&P Rules of the respondent-Board, which have been notified vide notification dated 1st November, 2006. Petitioner further stated that a bare perusal of Annexure C-1 suggests that there were 44 posts of AAOs in the respondent-Board, which are Class-I and selection posts. As per the Rules occupying the field at the time of selection of the petitioner, 30% of the posts were to be filled in by way of direct recruitment or on contract basis and 70% posts were to be filled in by way of promotion. 19. Alongwith the application i.e. CMP No. 4728 of 2016, the respondent has annexed a copy of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of AAO (Annexure C-1). 19. Alongwith the application i.e. CMP No. 4728 of 2016, the respondent has annexed a copy of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of AAO (Annexure C-1). It is apt to reproduce Clauses 10, 11 and 15(A) of the said Regulations hereunder: “10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods. METHOD OF RECRUITMENT i) By direct recruitment or on contract basis = 30% ii) By Promotion. =70% Failing both by secondment from Government Department/ PSU’s 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made. By promotion from amongst the Superintendent (Divisional Accounts) who have passed Part-II of HPSEB SAS Examination of the Board and having minimum three years service on the post of Supdt.(D/A). 15(A). Selection for appointment to the post of Contract appointment (I)(a) Under this policy the Assistant Accounts Office will be engaged on contract basis initially for one year, which may be extendable on year to year basis depending upon the performance and work and conduct on the job. However, their services will be terminated even prior to the completion of one year period, on issuance of one month notice or payment in lieu of the notice of one month, if available work load or their performance does not merit their retention.” 20. The petitioner specifically stated in para-2 of this application that the Secretary of the Board has written a letter (Annexure C-2), wherein out of a total cadre of 46 posts of AAOs, 32 posts were required to be filled up. Out of the said 32 posts, 14 posts fell to the quota of the direct recruitment, being 30%, whereas 18 posts were to be filled up by way of promotion (70% quota). 21. The respondent by way of filing reply to the application i.e. CMP No. 4728 of 2016 refuted the allegations of the petitioner by stating that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent as far as compliance of orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012 passed by this Court are concerned, rather aforesaid orders have been duly complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit. Respondents have specifically stated that order dated 16.7.2012 stands complied with inasmuch the claim of the petitioner stood considered in pursuance of the order dated 27.8.2012 by passing a detailed speaking order dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure RA-1). The respondents have specifically submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings they had represented before this Court that case of the petitioner Sh. Jodh Singh would be regulated in terms of the decision dated 13.1.2015 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.390 of 2015, titled Arjun Singh & Ors versus State of H.P. & Ors. Accordingly, on the dismissal of Review Petition as also the Curative Petition, the judgment dated 13.1.2015 in Arjun Singh’s case supra stands implemented in letter and spirit and in pursuance thereof the services of the petitioner herein also stand regularized from the date of his initial appointment in the year 2010, as is evident from the order dated 9.5.2016 (Annexure C-2) and as such, no dispute whatsoever, survived now. Therefore, present petition rendered infructuous. The respondents specifically refuting the claim put forth in CMP No. 4728 of 2016 stated that the petitioner has attempted to carve out totally a new case. 22. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that since the services of the petitioner have been regularized from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis on the analogy of Arjun Singh’s case and as such present Contempt Petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly. 23. Without going into the details of application (CMP No. 4728 of 2016), we may observe that the petitioner, by the medium of this application, has projected completely a new case, which is not the subject matter of the Contempt Petition. The petitioner has attempted to lay challenge to Annexure C-1 annexed with the application i.e. Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, which is not permissible in contempt proceedings. In terms of the Act, the Court cannot add or subtract to the judgment of which the contempt is sought. Under the Act, the Court has to see whether the alleged contemnors have violated the directions in any way and whether they deserve to be dealt with as per the mandate of the Act. 24. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Under the Act, the Court has to see whether the alleged contemnors have violated the directions in any way and whether they deserve to be dealt with as per the mandate of the Act. 24. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Shweta Joolka, Advocate, vehemently argued that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the directions contained in orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012, wherein it was specifically ordered that no promotion to the post of AAO’ would be made without prior permission of the Court. He forcibly contended that no direction whatsoever, of this Court was ever obtained by the respondents before alleged consideration of the case of the petitioner for regular employment as ‘AAO’ in terms of the order dated 27.8.2012. During arguments having been made by him, he vehemently argued that all efforts have been made by the respondent Board to defeat mandate of this Court, every time attempt has been made by filing false affidavit to misguide the Court by misstating the facts. He also made this Court to examine the documents placed by him on record to demonstrate that at no point of time his case had been considered by the Service Committee, as has been claimed by the respondents in their reply. He specifically invited the attention of the Court to the rejection order dated 14.11.2013 to substantiate his arguments that aforesaid order was merely passed to avoid the contempt proceedings because admittedly meeting of Service Committee was held on 1.2.2013 and at that time no order whatsoever, was ever passed in the case of the petitioner. He also invited the attention of the Court to CMP No. 4728 of 2016 to suggest that at the time of making further promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, condition of SAS-II examination has been purposely incorporated in the case of petitioner solely with a view to defeat the claim of the petitioner and as such, he prayed that in peculiar facts and circumstances as emerged from the record, respondent deserves to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of the Court Act. 25. Mr. 25. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Advocate, specifically stated that the present contempt petition has been virtually rendered infructuous because the case of the petitioner has already been considered in the light of the judgment dated 13.1.2015, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2015 and services of the petitioner have been regularized and as such, no grievance of the petitioner survives. He specifically invited the attention of the Court to the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, wherein he had prayed that writ of mandamus may be issued against the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as ‘AAO’, with consequential benefits, to demonstrate that in view of the decision taken by the Board to implement the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arjun Singh’s case, now nothing survives in the case of the petitioner since relief claimed by the petitioner in CWP No. 5557 of 2012 has been duly granted to him by the respondents Board and as such, present contempt petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly. 26. Learned Advocate General vehemently argued that at no point of time orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012 were ever disobeyed by the respondents. It was also submitted that after passing of order dated 27.8.2012, case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 1.2.2013. The Service Committee taking into account the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by the HPSEBL, which were in vogue at that time, came to the conclusion that Assistant Accounts Officer (contract) should be regularized as per policy of regularization of all contract employees. He strenuously argued that in case petitioner was aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2013, appropriate remedy for him was to challenge the said order. In the aforesaid background, he prayed that in view of the subsequent developments which have taken place during the pendency of the instant contempt petitions, the same deserve to be disposed of as having rendered infructuous. 27. The present petition (COPC No. 4295 of 2013) has been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012. 27. The present petition (COPC No. 4295 of 2013) has been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012. Though, order dated 16.7.2012 suggests that respondents were directed not to make any promotion to the regular post of AAO till further orders without prior permission of the Court, but subsequently, vide order dated 27.8.2012, respondents were permitted to make further promotions subject to the condition that at first instance claim of the petitioner would be considered for regular appointment as ‘AAO’. 28. The petitioner by way of present petition has attempted to demonstrate that despite there being specific order dated 27.8.2012, respondents without considering the case of the petitioner issued office order Nos. 362 and 363, dated 19.10.2013 assigning/entrusting work of ‘AO’ to ‘AAO’ in violation of order dated 16.7.2012, which was further modified vide order dated 27.8.2012. 29. At this stage, this Court solely with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the submissions having been made on behalf of the petitioner perused office orders No.362 and 363 dated 19.10.2013 (Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4), perusal whereof suggests that by way of these orders charge of the post of ‘AO’ has been entrusted to certain ‘AAO’ in the same pay scale and rank without any extra remuneration. Similarly, it also emerges from these orders that respondent-Board while issuing these office orders, has ordered transfer and posting of certain AAOs’, whereby they have been directed to look after the work of Accounts Officers against available vacancies in their own rank and pay scale without extra financial benefit with immediate effect. 30. After perusing the aforesaid orders, this Court really finds it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that order dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012 have been flouted by the respondent because vide order dated 27.8.2012, permission was granted to the respondent to make further promotion subject to the condition that at first instance case of the petitioner for regular appointment as ‘AAO’ would be considered. 31. Careful perusal of the reply filed by the respondent suggests that case for regularization of the petitioner alongwith 12 number of ‘AOs’ engaged on contract basis in respondent-Board was considered by the Service Committee in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 in terms of order dated 27.8.2012, passed by this Court in CWP No. 5557 of 2012. 31. Careful perusal of the reply filed by the respondent suggests that case for regularization of the petitioner alongwith 12 number of ‘AOs’ engaged on contract basis in respondent-Board was considered by the Service Committee in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 in terms of order dated 27.8.2012, passed by this Court in CWP No. 5557 of 2012. However, it appears that as per provisions contained in Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by respondent-Board, petitioner was not having minimum eligibility, which could make him entitled for the regularization against the post of ‘AAO’. Further perusal of order dated 14.11.2013, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Service Committee in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 strictly in terms of the order dated 27.8.2012 alongwith other similarly placed ‘AAOs’. 32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the direction contained in the orders dated 16.7.2012 and 27.8.2012. But after perusing the application, being CMP No. 4728 of 2016, this Court is compelled to observe that the petitioner by way of this application has attempted to project altogether new case/issue which was admittedly never raised in CWP No. 5557 of 2012. 33. It appears that the petitioner is now aggrieved with the condition incorporated by the respondent-Board in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, wherein passing of SAS examination has been made mandatory for the category of the petitioner and the similar situate persons. But, as above observed above, the aspect which has been put forth by way of miscellaneous petition i.e. CMP No. 4728 of 2016 cannot be looked into by this Court in contempt proceedings and as such, same deserves to be rejected outrightly. This Court while exercising its power under Section 12 of the Act is only competent to look/examine the disobedience, if any, of the orders passed by it in any of the proceedings pending before it. 34. This Court while exercising its power under Section 12 of the Act is only competent to look/examine the disobedience, if any, of the orders passed by it in any of the proceedings pending before it. 34. Moreover, as clearly emerge from the latest reply filed by the respondent in CMP No. 4728 of 2016, services of the petitioner have been already regularized as AAO from the date of his initial appointment in the year, 2010 and necessary order in this regard has already been issued on 9.5.2016 in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arjun Singh’s case supra. 35. Since the main relief, as was claimed by the petitioners in CWP Nos. 5557 of 2012 and CWP No. 1777 of 2013 stand granted in favour of the petitioners, this Court sees no reason to continue with the present contempt proceedings. 36. In R.N. Dey and others versus Bhagyabati Pramanik and others (2000) 4 SCC 400 , the Hon’ble Apex Curt has held as under:- “The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court’s dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court. It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the first appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that the claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is a nullity. Even presuming that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is a nullity. In such a situation, as there was no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified.” 37. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not been able to show/demonstrate that the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the directions contained in orders dated 16.7.2012, 27.8.2012 and 16.5.2015. As such, no case has been made out for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents since the respondents, by way of detailed reply/affidavit, have been able to persuade this Court to draw a conclusion that they have complied with the directions contained in the said orders. Accordingly, the present contempt petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand also disposed of.