Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 963 (RAJ)

Rajesh Yadav v. Laxmi Narayan Sharma

2016-07-08

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2016
ORDER : Although matter has come up on application filed by the respondent for vacation of the exparte order passed by this Court dated 18-12-2015 but with consent of the parties we have heard the parties on merits. 2. The facts on record manifests that initially S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4333/2014 came to be filed by the respondent and it was prayed that he is entitled to seek regularisation of his service on the post of Conductor from the date he completed 180 days of service and further entitled for regular pay-scale, annual grade increments, revised pay-scale and consequential benefits to which he was entitled for under the law and the writ petition at the motion stage without calling upon the respondents came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22-5-2014 and observed/directed as under:- "Having regard to the facts of the case afore-stated, the writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to approach the respondent no.1, who shall examine the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, supra, and the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009. While doing so, the respondents may not construe the reinstatement of the petitioner pursuant to order/ award of the Industrial Tribunal, to be the intervention of the order of the court or the Tribunal as referred in Para 53 of the judgment in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, supra, as was final adjudication made on the application of the petitioner under Section 33A of the Act. Appropriate order on representation of the petitioner may be passed within three months. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of." 3. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation which was to be examined by the competent authority of the Corporation in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge, referred to supra. Indisputably the representation was submitted by the respondent and the competent authority of the Corporation in its wisdom looked into the matter and disposed of the representation assigning reasons vide order dated 17-9-2015. 4. Indisputably the representation was submitted by the respondent and the competent authority of the Corporation in its wisdom looked into the matter and disposed of the representation assigning reasons vide order dated 17-9-2015. 4. It reveals that prior to passing the order dated 17-9-2015 a contempt petition was preferred and after the notices were served and passing of the order dated 17-9-2015, when the matter came up before the Court in the contempt proceedings a detailed order was passed on 29-9-2015 directing the authorities to issue order of regularisation with the rider that the same shall abide by the decision of the disciplinary inquiry and awaiting decision of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.830/2005 and the respondents authorities may take undertaking from the writ petitioner in this regard, which became the subject matter of challenge by filing instant special appeal. 5. Counsel for appellant submits that once the representation submitted by the respondent in compliance of order of the Court dated 22-5-2014 was disposed of vide order dated 17-9-2015 it was not expected from the learned Single Judge to proceed further in the contempt petition and the directions which have been issued under order impugned dated 29-9-2015 exceeds the jurisdiction vested with the learned Single Judge under the Contempt of Courts Act and it was not the matter where cognizance was taken u/Art.215 of the Constitution of India. 6. Counsel further submits that the order passed in the contempt petition is exceeding the scope of contempt petition and it has been examined & decided by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No.78/2000 & other connected appeals vide judgment dated 10-2-2015 and in light thereof appeals preferred against such orders passed in the contempt proceedings are maintainable. 7. Once the representation submitted by the writ petitioner in compliance of order of the Court dated 22-5-2014 was decided by the competent authority of Corporation vide its order dated 17-9-2015, for all practical purposes order of the Court stood complied with & there was no case made out of deliberate disobedience being committed which may be initiated by the writ petitioner. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment, referred to, observed in para-12 & 13 as under:- "12. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment, referred to, observed in para-12 & 13 as under:- "12. In the present case, we find that learned Single Judge, instead of exercising his powers, after recording the findings to punish the guilty person, has issued fresh directions, and thus, the order passed without jurisdiction, even if it is passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, is appealable under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. The judgment in J.S. Parihar (supra) is directly on the point in issue, and for which similar observations have been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (supra). 13. For the aforesaid reasons, these intra court Special Appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 13.9.2000 are held to be maintainable, and for the reasons given as above, the Special Appeals are allowed and the order dated 13.9.2000 is set aside. Learned Single Judge hearing the contempt matters, will now decide the contempt proceeding in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by us in this order. All the pending applications are accordingly disposed of." 9. After taking note of the submissions made & going through the relevant provisions & the judgment (supra), we do find justification in what has been urged by the appellants before us that appeal against such orders exceeding the scope of contempt proceedings is maintainable and the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned dated 29-9-2015 is not sustainable. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt petition no.229/2015 dated 29-9-2015 is hereby quashed & set aside. However, the respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if feels aggrieved by the order passed on his representation dated 17-9-2015, permissible under the law. As observed (supra), since the order stood complied with, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Notices are discharged.