Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1305 (RAJ)

Ram Karan Meena v. Milind A. Kharat

2018-05-17

K.S.JHAVERI, VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Pursuant to the suggestion of the Court Mr. P.P. Malhotra Senior Counsel appeared and he has put amicable solution of the matter. 2. By way of this contempt proceedings, the petitioner has prayed for implementation of the order of this Court. The petitioner has been fighting for his right for quite a some time. 3. Different orders came to be passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court:- On 5th September, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed the following order:- "Let the matter be listed on 6.9.2017 before the appropriate Bench as per roster subject to removal of defects, if any." 4. Again on 6th September, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being." 5. Thereafter, on 21st September, 2017 the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "When the matter came up before this Court for admission, the court passed the following order on 06.09.2017:- Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being." In response to the above order, the petitioner has failed an affidavit, in which it is stated that respondent no. 1 has superannuated on 31.05.2016, the learned senior counsel submits that his immediate junior was promoted as Scale-II officer and thereafter in 2007, on the basis of a selection process, he was promoted to the Scale-III officer and retired in the year 2010. 1 has superannuated on 31.05.2016, the learned senior counsel submits that his immediate junior was promoted as Scale-II officer and thereafter in 2007, on the basis of a selection process, he was promoted to the Scale-III officer and retired in the year 2010. The learned senior counsel further submits that since respondent no. 1 did not go through the process of selection, the petitioner is prepared to grant all benefits which have been granted to the Scale-II Officer - Mr. S.K. Gautam, his immediate junior, upto 2007. But what would be the fate of the officer after 2007, the learned senior counsel is not in a position to respond. It is submitted that the respondent has not gone through the selection process, further promotions cannot be granted. However, it is submitted that in case respondent no. 1 appears before this Court, some equitable relief can be worked out. Issue notice, returnable on 11.10.2017, on the condition that the litigation expenses of respondent no. 1 shall be borne by the petitioner. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Contempt proceedings will be deferred for the time being." 6. Again on 12th October, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondents seeking adjournment for filing reply affidavit, list after two weeks." 7. On 13th November, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "List on 20.11.2017." 8. Again on 20th November, 2017, the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "Learned counsel for the respondents has today handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner a calculation of the benefits which the immediate juniors have received. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks a week's time to verify the same." 9. Thereafter, on 22nd January, 2018, the Supreme Court has passed following order:- "The issue remaining to be decided is a mixed question of law and fact. We are informed that the High Court is in seisin of the matter. We request the High Court to take a decision on the issue after hearing the parties. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for deciding that question, the presence of the officers may be necessary. We find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel. In case, the High Court feels that the records are necessary, it is free to call for the records. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for deciding that question, the presence of the officers may be necessary. We find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel. In case, the High Court feels that the records are necessary, it is free to call for the records. However, the presence of the officers may not be insisted till the issue is otherwise decided. The special leave petitions are disposed of, as above. The parties are free to raise all available contentions before the High Court. We request the High Court to take a final call expeditiously, preferably before it closes for summer vacation. Pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of." 10. This Court on 1st December, 2017, passed the following order:- "When the matter was listed yesterday, it was kept for 2'O clock yesterday but one of the brother judge was not well therefore, the matter was kept today. We specifically directed the counsel for the respondents that respondent no. 2 & 3 will remain present in the Court. However, today in the morning, counsel for the respondent practicing in Delhi High Court has tried to over power the local lawyer Dr. Saugath Roy and threaten with contempt proceedings will be initiated against him before the Supreme Court. We have gone through the Supreme Court's order which reads as under:- "On 5.9.2017 following order was passed:- Let the matter be listed on 6.9.2017 before the appropriate Bench as per roster subject to removal of defects, if any." On 6.9.2017 following order was passed:- Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being. On 21.09.2017 following order was passed:- When the matter came up before this Court for admission, the court passed the following order on 06.09.2017:- Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks for some time to look the judgment of the Division Bench, particularly in the matter of all consequential benefits as are available to any other Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) in 1989-90. A suggestion has been made as to whether the petitioner would be prepared to grant all benefits which have been given to his immediate juniors on the merit-cum-seniority, learned senior counsel seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 21.09.2017. We request the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings for the time being." In response to the above order, the petitioner has failed an affidavit, in which it is stated that respondent no. 1 has superannuated on 31.05.2016, the learned senior counsel submits that his immediate junior was promoted as Scale-II officer and thereafter in 2007, on the basis of a selection process, he was promoted to the Scale-III officer and retired in the year 2010. The learned senior counsel further submits that since respondent no. 1 did not go through the process of selection, the petitioner is prepared to grant all benefits which have been granted to the Scale-II Officer - Mr. S.K. Gautam, his immediate junior, upto 2007. But what would be the fate of the officer after 2007, the learned senior counsel is not in a position to respond. It is submitted that the respondent has not gone through the selection process, further promotions cannot be granted. However, it is submitted that in case respondent no. 1 appears before this Court, some equitable relief can be worked out. Issue notice, returnable on 11.10.2017, on the condition that the litigation expenses of respondent no. 1 shall be borne by the petitioner. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Contempt proceedings will be deferred for the time being. However, it is submitted that in case respondent no. 1 appears before this Court, some equitable relief can be worked out. Issue notice, returnable on 11.10.2017, on the condition that the litigation expenses of respondent no. 1 shall be borne by the petitioner. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Contempt proceedings will be deferred for the time being. On 20.11.2017 following order was passed:- Learned counsel for the respondents has today handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner a calculation of the benefits which the immediate juniors have received. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, seeks a week's time to verify the same." After the order of 21st September, 2017, there is no order for deferment of the contempt proceedings. It will not be out of place to mention the complete history of the matter. The petitioner filed writ petition in 1991 which came to be decided almost after 20 years in 2011 and the appeal was dismissed in 2014 and contempt proceedings are initiated under the Contempt Court 2015, because of the respondent institution with power, the petitioner is starving since more than 26 years. This is really nothing but an abuse and misuse of court proceedings by Company which is carrying on general insurance for the public at large. The threat given by the counsel is required to be viewed seriously in view of the fact that in the morning when the proceedings initiated, counsel has threatened the local counsel as well as the court with the contempt of the Supreme Court's order. Today, in spite of order yesterday, the officers are not present but to avoid conflict between the earlier order of the Supreme Court which are not extended after 21st September, 2017, we are deferring the matter, but we make it clear that Company should have made immediate payment which was admitted according by them. Now the payment may be made before next date of hearing of admitted amount." 11. Taking into consideration that scale 3 & 4 are selection posts however, in view of the judgment by which juniors were promoted, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be served if the petitioner is granted only notional benefit and no arrears will be paid. Even pension will be re-fixed notionally and if there is any arrears of pension the same will be paid. 12. Even pension will be re-fixed notionally and if there is any arrears of pension the same will be paid. 12. We make it clear that this will not be treated as precedent in any other case and the expenses as directed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner who is present in person has stated that he paid Rs. 1,10,000/- by cheque. The same may be reimbursed as directed by the Supreme Court. The said amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- is in addition to the amount which has been re-fixed as pension by us as above. He will not be entitled for any other amount and the payment will be made to him by 15th August, 2018. The petition stands disposed of. The notices are discharged. The applications (6548/18 & 6549/18) stand disposed of.