Allahabad High Court
Jagat Pal And 3 Ors. vs Sri Kaushlendra Prasad & Another. on 11 July, 2013
Bench: Ajai Lamba
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 26
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1915 of 2004
Applicant :- Jagat Pal And 3 Ors.
Opposite Party :- Sri Kaushlendra Prasad & Another.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.C.Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
This petition seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts' Act 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of judgment dated 24.11.2003 rendered in Writ Petition No.1989(SS) of 2001.
Vide order at issue, the petitioner was held entitled to a minimum of the pay-scale of Class IV employee, without increments and other allowances. Question of regular absorption of the petitioner in service was required to be considered by the respondents. It was further stipulated that if the regularization is denied on the ground of break in service, the same shall be ignored for considering regularization.
It transpires that all the petitioners were taken in service and are being paid minimum of the pay-scale of Class IV employee. However, name of the petitioners was not considered for regularization in close proximity of time from 24th of November, 2003, i.e. date of the order of the writ court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-contemners states that the rights of the petitioners have been decided vide order dated 04.5.2012, appended with the short counter affidavit of Sri V.K. Mishra, Divisional Director of Forest, Social Forestry Division, District Faizabad, dated 11.3.2013.
Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to order dated 04.5.2012, has pointed out that petitioner no.3 had never served the employer. The petitioner joined only in the year 1999. The petitioners no.1 and 2 had substantial brakes in their service, as indicated by the chart given in order dated 04.5.2012. The claim of all the four petitioners has been considered in context of Rule IV(1) Regularization Rules of 2001. Break in service is substantial.
I have considered facts and circumstances of the case.
This court while sitting in jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 cannot issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order passed by the respondent-contemners. Be that as it may, this court finds that substantial delay has been caused in deciding the rights of the petitioner.
The Special Appeal was filed in the year 2005, that is much beyond limitation. No interim order has been passed in favour of the respondent-contemners. In such circumstances, it was reasonably expected of the respondents to take a decision strictly in terms of decision of the writ court. Respondents, however, have reacted after more than nine years.
Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the delay caused in proceedings in this court as also the fact that order dated 04.5.2013 has been passed by the respondent-contemners only because this court under the Contempt of Courts' Act had taken serious note of the conduct of the respondents, petitioners are required to be compensated by way of payment of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand only) costs to each of the petitioners, payable within fifteen days from today.
With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Costs would be recovered from the salary of the officer/official, who is found responsible for causing delay in proceedings of the Court and in taking belated decision in regard to the rights of the petitioners.
Needless to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge order dated 04.5.2012 in accordance with law, if so advised.
Order Date :- 11.7.2013
A.Nigam
