Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2698 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Kumhar

2019-10-17

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal has been filed with Application No. 76802/2017 seeking leave of the Court to file appeal against order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Appeal is time barred by 239 days. 2. Mr. Ganesh Meena, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that originally the appeal was filed in the name of the officers, who were arrayed as contemnors-respondents in the contempt petition. Subsequently, appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeal in the name of State of Rajasthan as the learned Single Judge in the impugned order awarded cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to Respondent No. 1. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in its judgment dated 30.08.2011 though required the appellant to make compliance of the order while directing payment of selection scale to Respondent No. 1 from 10.10.1994 within a period of three months but it also directed that if the said amount is not paid within three months, he shall be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum. It is submitted that compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal was made when payment of a sum of Rs. 2,48,453/-, pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal together with interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay to the tune of Rs. 93,270/- was paid to Respondent No. 1 on 13.01.2018. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even if there was delay of almost 7 years, the respondent was adequately compensated for such delay by way of payment of interest. 3. The learned Single Judge was dealing with the contempt petition which was received on reference from the Tribunal where alternative remedy of appeal is provided to the employees of the State Government for redressal of their grievances. This Court has come across with several cases where the judgments of the Tribunal are seldom complied with and if complied with, the government authorities take enormous time in doing so. The same has been the situation before this Court in many cases for quite some time where despite sufficient time being given for compliance of the judgment of this Court, the same is not complied with until contempt petition is filed and then the respondent-government officials are required to comply with the same. The same has been the situation before this Court in many cases for quite some time where despite sufficient time being given for compliance of the judgment of this Court, the same is not complied with until contempt petition is filed and then the respondent-government officials are required to comply with the same. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, in our view, has rightly observed that the orders passed by the Tribunal are not being complied with as a matter of routine, on account of which, large number of matters instead of being filed before the Tribunal are being led before this Court. Such attitude of the officials of the Government increases burden of litigation before this Court with the result that the genuine litigation takes back seat and this kind of litigation multiplies. Even though, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order held the respondent-officials guilty of the contempt petition yet instead of punishing them for contempt of order of the Court imposed cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to Respondent No. 1. Learned Single Judge has directed that the amount be paid by the Education Department to the respondent within two months but at the same time, also directed that the appellant-department would be free to conduct enquiry to ascertain the liability of the concerned official for causing inordinate delay in making compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if upon completion of the enquiry, responsibility of the erring official is fixed, the appellant-State shall recover the amount of cost from him/her. Application No. 76802/2017 and 1756/2019 stand disposed of.