Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 430 (UTT)

Jagdish Ram v. Jai Raj Shah

2020-11-04

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.1033 of 2017, praying for that his services may be regularized and for the relief that he may be granted a minimum of pay-scale. The Writ Petition came up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.05.2017, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 15.05.2017, had disposed of the Writ Petition which was based on an earlier judgment which was rendered on 11.04.2017, in Writ Petition No.1762 of 2014. The judgment based on which the Writ Petition of the petitioner was decided, contained the following directions:- "Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of judgment cited hereinabove. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and to grant the minimum pay scale to the petitioners along with the Grade Pay within a period of ten weeks from today." And the directions issued in the petitioners writ petition, based on the aforesaid judgment was as under: "Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment cited hereinabove. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and to grant the minimum pay scale to the petitioners alongwith the Grade Pay within a period of ten weeks from today as per the Regularisation Rules of 2003 read with Regularisation Rules of 2011 and 2013. 2. The direction given by the judgment of 11.04.2017, to be read with judgment dated 15.05.2017, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and for the grant of minimum of pay-scale. In fact, the said judgment dated 11.04.2017 also was yet again was based upon an earlier judgment which was rendered in bunch of writ petitions, with leading writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1721 of 2015, as decided in a bunch of cases by the judgment of 27.03.2017. In fact, the said judgment dated 11.04.2017 also was yet again was based upon an earlier judgment which was rendered in bunch of writ petitions, with leading writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1721 of 2015, as decided in a bunch of cases by the judgment of 27.03.2017. The judgment as rendered in the case of the petitioner on 15.05.2017 in Writ Petition No.1033 of 2017, was made a subject matter of the challenge in a special appeal, being Special Appeal No.875 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand vs. Jagdish Ram and the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 10.11.2017, had disposed of the Special Appeal with the directions as contained in Para 4 of the same judgment of Division Bench dated 10.11.2017, which is quoted hereunder:- "4. According to the appellants, as far as minimum pay is concerned, the same is, actually, being paid. In regard to regularisation, it is contended that, actually, there are persons, who are senior to the writ petitioners, and, therefore, it is that the petitioners cannot be regularised. It is also stated that no person junior to the writ petitioners, as daily wager in the department, has been regularised and, on the availability of the vacancy of Group 'D' posts, the regularisation exercise will be undertaken and the candidature of the writ petitioners for regularisation will be considered as per the inter se seniority. 5. We would think that the learned Single Judge has only directed for consideration of the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation. The writ petition was disposed of without calling for the counter affidavit. We only make it clear that the consideration of the case of the writ petitioners need be done as per law." 3. 5. We would think that the learned Single Judge has only directed for consideration of the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation. The writ petition was disposed of without calling for the counter affidavit. We only make it clear that the consideration of the case of the writ petitioners need be done as per law." 3. The petitioner alleging its non-compliance had preferred this Contempt Petition on 06.09.2020, which was reported by the Registry to be barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner today at the time of hearing of this Contempt Petition, was that since the respondent had passed an order on 04.09.2020, by virtue of which certain persons who were junior, to the petitioner have been regularized and he portrayed that those persons whose services have been regularized, some of them since happened to be junior to the petitioner, hence, he had contended that for him; the cause of action arose only when the order of regularization dated 04.09.2020, was passed by the respondents. Believing the said assertion, the notices were issued to the respondents by this Court by an order dated 18.09.2020, and in response thereto, the respondents have filed the compliance affidavit on 03.11.2020. 4. When the matter was taken up today, the counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court, that the person who names were mentioned in the order of regularization dated 04.09.2020, were the incumbent whose name is reflected in the list which was issued by the respondent, which has been appended as Annexure No.4 to the Contempt Petition, the name of which appears at Serial No. 46, as to be of one "Vidyadutt". 5. When the matter was taken up today, the counsel for the respondent, Mr. J. C. Bisht, the learned Standing Counsel, had raised a preliminary objections with regards to the maintainability of the Contempt Petition, on account of the bar which is created by Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, and his submissions is that, since, the judgment which is sought to be enforced is of 2017, Section 20 would be attracted, which contemplates that no Contempt Petition not would lie after the period prescribed therein i.e. one year. He further submitted that the cognizability of the Contempt, which was taken by this Court, by an order dated 18.09.2020, it was on the basis of the order dated 04.09.2020, which in the present circumstances may not be attracted because the order of 04.09.2020, does not contain the name of any person junior to the petitioner, whose services have been regularized. He further submits that in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which if it is taken into consideration, the Division Bench disposed of the Special Appeal on 10.11.2017, with the directions that the respondent would consider the aspect for the regularization of services and, since, the same has alredy been considered, and the decision has been taken by the respondent on 22.10.2020, the judgment stands complied with. 6. To deal with the first argument, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as counsel for the respondent, pertaining to the impact of Section 20, I am of the view that, the logic which has been argued by the petitioner, of deriving a cause of action, to file a contempt petition based on the order of regularization dated 04.09.2020, is not sustainable, because he has failed to show that the said order of regularization included the name of any person who is junior to the petitioner, whose services had been regularized and even the name of the incumbent which is appearing under Serial No. 46 of the list Annexure No.4 of the petition is not included in the said order of regularization dated 04.09.2020, and, if in such an eventuality, the objection taken by the Standing Counsel, Mr. J. C. Bisht, pertaining to Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, is upheld and accordingly the Contempt Petition would deserve to be dismissed, on that ground itself. 7. But, however, it is also essential to deal with the second argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the respondents, as it has been pleaded in the compliance affidavit, that the direction which was given for consideration of regularization of the petitioner, since, has already been considered and the same has been rejected by an order dated 1129/29 dated 22.10.2020. Even, otherwise also his argument is that the judgment stands complied with, hence, there is no contempt made out as such. Even, otherwise also his argument is that the judgment stands complied with, hence, there is no contempt made out as such. This may be one of the aspect which could be attracted to be considered while deciding the Contempt, but, since, I have already held that the Contempt Petition was barred by Section 20 of the Act, and the so called plea of cause of action was not borne from the records placed by the parties to the Contempt Petition, the plea regards the rejection of the claim of petitioner for regularisation, by an order dated 22.10.2020, it may not be having any hearing as such, because of the bar of Section 20 of the Act, it may not be opened to be considered in the present Contempt Petition. 8. This Contempt Petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondent is hereby discharged. Lastly, the petitioner had prayed for a grant of liberty to him, leaving it open to challenge the order dated 22.10.2020, is declined on account of the placement of mis-leading fact at the time, when the Contempt Petition was being argued, on the pretext that junior to the petitioner had been regularised.