Ram Lakhan Verma vs Shri R.C.Jhan
2012 Latest Caselaw 447 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 447 ALL
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Ram Lakhan Verma vs Shri R.C.Jhan on 18 April, 2012

Bench: Satish Chandra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 393 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Verma
 
Respondent :- Shri R.C.Jhan
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Shivam Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.

Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on 02.05.2008, this Court has passed an order in writ petition No. 5723 (S/S) of 2002. The operative portion of the order, on reproduction, reads as under:-

"In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2002 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for regularisation is here by quashed and the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance wiith 'Rules 2001' afresh in the light of the aforesaid two decisions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs."

Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the opposite party and the petitioner is presently working as daily wager and getting the minimum pay-scale. But he has not been regularized. So, the contempt petition has been committed.

On the other hand, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. Both the decisions mentioned in the operative portion were considered in the minutes dated 04.12.2008. He further submits that the petitioner is getting the minimum pay-scale. But, he cannot be regularized for want of vacancy.

After hearing both the parties, it appears that the compliance of the order has been carried out. However, for the grievances, if any, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy at the appropriate forum. But, presently, no contempt exists.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.4.2012/Nitesh