Jay Singh vs . Raj Kumar Pruthi

Jay Singh vs. Raj Kumar Pruthi .

COPC No. 353 of 2023 10.11.2023 Present: Mr.Devender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent.

Vide judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed in CWPOA No.5986 of 2019, titled as Shanti Devi vs. Himachal Urban Development Authority & another and connected matter, respondents were directed as under:-

"11. Consequently, in view of the above, all these petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to confer work charge status to the petitioners from the due date i.e. from the date petitioners completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year and thereafter, their services be regularized in terms of policy framed by the government from time to time.

Since learned counsel for the petitioners have already made statement before the Division Bench of this Court at the time of passing of the judgment dated 22.5.2011 that in case petitioner are regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2007, they will not claim any benefit prior to 1.1.2007, petitioners are held entitled to consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2007. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any."

Compliance affidavit dated 26.10.2023 has been filed by the respondents. Alongwith compliance affidavit, office order dated 31.07.2023 has also been placed on record. At the bottom of this office order, C.E.O.-cum-Secretary, i.e. respondent has restricted the back wages and arrears three years prior to filing of the petition by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3197 of 1991, titled as Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P.

Order of the Court passed in CWPOA No. 5986 of 2019, .

is more than clear, stating therein that petitioners are entitled for consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and there is no order to restrict the claim of the arrears of the petitioner for three years prior to filing of the petition.

Judgment in Jai Dev Gupta's case was not judgment in rem and the same cannot be imported by the respondent to tinker with the direction issued by the Court. Such office order passed by the respondent is in defiance of direction passed by the Court amounting to interference in administration of justice and, therefore, respondent is in contempt. Hence respondent is directed to show cause with explanation that why he should not be punished for committing contempt by passing an order on next date of hearing.

List on 01.12.2023.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge November 10, 2023 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 10/11/2023 20:35:46 :::CIS