Allahabad High Court
Sadhu Saran Yadav & 12 Others vs Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha & 3 Others on 5 July, 2016
Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 297 of 2016
Applicant :- Sadhu Saran Yadav & 12 Others
Opposite Party :- Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha & 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel and perused the record.
Affidavit of compliance has been filed by respondent no. 4, which shows that by order dated 15.04.2016, the petitioners have been permitted to work as daily wager.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the services of the petitioners have not been regularized. Therefore, it is not a complete compliance.
By this contempt petition, the disobedience of order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Division of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 809 of 2008 has been alleged.
By order dated 02.11.2015, the following has been held:-
"The appellants, who are identically situated, cannot be deprived of the same relief and justice from this Court where once the writ petition filed by other person has been allowed and the oral order of termination has been quashed and the opposite parties have been directed to restore his services. The judicial discipline on our part is also required to pass the same order, which has been passed in favour of the petitioner of Writ Petition No.3313 (SS) of 1993. The appellants cannot be discriminated and there too on technicality and the technicality is also not being borne out from the record. Learned Single Judge though observed that the termination order has not been challenged, but failed to take into consideration the fact that writ of mandamus was prayed for in both the writ petitions and if writ of mandamus was prayed for in both the writ petitions, the appellants could not have been discriminated in the matter of discharge of justice.
We accordingly allow the special appeal and set aside the orders dated 18.8.2008 and 17.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the opposite parties to permit the appellants to continue in service with all consequential benefits, which relief was given in the order dated 2.7.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3313 (SS) of 1993."
In Writ Petition No. 3313 (S/S) of 1993, the order dated 2.7.2008 was passed, the operative portion of which is extracted here-below:-
" The writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Oral order of termination , if any, or the decision taken by the opposite parties terminating the petitioner's service is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to continue in service with all consequential benefits and also consider the petitioner's case for regularisation in accordance with the Regularisation Rules, expeditiously.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
No order as to costs."
From the perusal of both the orders, it reveals that the termination of the services of the petitioners was quashed and a writ of mandamus was issued commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioners to continue in service. The second direction was to consider the petitioners' case for regularization in accordance with the Regularisation Rules, expeditiously.
In the affidavit of compliance, Annexure CA-1 has been filed, which shows that the petitioners have been permitted to work. Annexure CA-2 has also been filed with the affidavit of compliance, by which the regularization of the petitioners has been rejected by a speaking order.
In my opinion, the directions issued by this Court have been complied with by the authority concerned.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2016
GSY
