Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur Shukla And Another vs Ayodhya Prasad, District Forest ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84404
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4061 of 2019
Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Shukla And Another
Opposite Party :- Ayodhya Prasad, District Forest Officer Azamgarh
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma,Namit Srivastava
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Ganga Datta Mishra, Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Azamgarh is present in the Court today who is identified by Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel.
2. An affidavit along with an exemption application has been filed today which is taken on record.
3. The services of the applicants who are before the Court was terminated along with 9 other employees by order dated 30.06.1992. Out of 11 employees, 9 employees filed Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 before this Court. By order dated 27.08.1992, the writ petition was disposed of by writ Court requiring the authorities to pass order afresh complying the principles of natural justice after affording an opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the authorities after issuing notices to 11 employees terminated their services by order dated 17.09.1992. Except the applicants, the other 9 employees filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46026 of 1992. The writ Court on 18.12.1998 found that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition upholding the order dated 17.09.1992.
4. The present two applicants had also preferred Writ-A No. 36610 of 1992 before this Court which was allowed on 29.07.2010 and following order was passed:-
"It is stated that the services of similar situate 11 employees were terminated under one common order dated 30.6.1992.
Nine of such employees filed Writ Petition No. Nil/1992 which has been allowed by Division Bench on the ground that the impugned order was in fact cancellation of the appointment. Such order could not have been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioners. The order has been set aside with liberty to the authorities to pass fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the present writ petition has been filed by the other two persons.
Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the correctness of the facts stated or the order passed by Division Bench of this Court referred to above dated 27.2.1992 which is enclosed along with supplementary affidavit.
The present writ petition is allowed for similar reasons and order dated 17.9.1992 is quashed. However, liberty is granted to respondent authorities to pass to fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioners.
Writ petition is allowed."
5. From perusal of the order, it is clear that though the mention of Writ Petition No. Nil/1992 is there whereby the earlier termination order dated 30.06.1992 was set aside but there is no mention of the subsequent cancellation order dated 17.09.1992 having been upheld by co-ordinate Bench on 18.12.1998.
6. It appears that the writ petition filed by applicant was allowed per incuriam as the order passed by co-ordinate Bench on 18.12.1998 was never brought to the notice of the Court. The order dated 17.09.1992 in entirety was quashed by writ Court which was earlier affirmed by co-ordinate Bench and thereafter a special appeal having been preferred by 9 other employees was dismissed being Special Appeal No. 279 of 1999 by order dated 28.02.2000. The order of special appeal was carried upto Hon'ble Apex Court by 9 employees who were terminated by the same order being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9175 of 2000 which was dismissed on 12.07.2000. Copies of all these orders have been collectively brought on record as annexure- 2, 3 and 4 to compliance affidavit filed today.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier termination order dated 17.09.1992 having been quashed on 29.07.2010, the applicants continued to work and, thereafter, another termination order was passed on 30.11.2018 whereby their services were terminated which is subject-matter of consideration in Writ-A No. 5993 of 2019, wherein an interim order has been granted on 29.04.2019.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. It is not in dispute that 11 employees were appointed by Forest Department on 16.06.1992 by a common order. Their services were terminated by a common order on 30.06.1992. Copy of which has been brought on record as annexure-1 to compliance affidavit filed today. The order of termination dated 30.06.1992 was subject-matter of first round of litigation through Writ Petition No. Nil/1992 which was disposed of on 27.08.1992 requiring the State authorities to proceed again with the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to 11 employees.
10. It was after the issuance of notice that their services were again terminated by a common order dated 17.09.1992. This order was subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 46026 of 1992, where the 9 employees had come forward excluding the present two applicants. The writ Court had upheld the termination order dated 17.09.1992 itself and did not distinguish between those 9 petitioners and the applicants.
11. The contention of the applicant counsel that their writ petition was subsequently allowed on 29.07.2010 as the termination order dated 17.09.19992 was quashed cannot be accepted, in view of fact that once the termination order dated 17.09.1992 itself was upheld on 18.12.1998 and thereafter the special appeal filed challenging that order was dismissed on 28.02.2000, thereafter, the order was affirmed by Apex Court in the year 2000, the matter stood concluded as far as termination of 11 employees was concerned by order dated 17.09.1992.
12. Due to the fact that this order of 18th December, 1998 was not brought to the notice of the Court when the order dated 29.07.2010 was passed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed. This Court finds that once the basic termination order dated 17.09.1992 was upheld itself by writ Court, then, subsequently by Division Bench in special appeal and, thereafter, by Apex Court, the matter stood concluded and no relief can be accorded to the present two applicants on the strength of the order dated 29.07.2010 and thereafter on the basis of the interim order granted on 29.04.2019 in Writ-A No. 5993 of 2019.
13. I find that there has been material concealment of facts by petitioners from writ Court in the year 2010 itself. In case, the order passed by writ Court on 18.12.1998 would have been placed before the writ Court in Writ-A No. 36610 of 1992 filed by applicants, the writ Court would not have allowed the writ petition filed by the applicants and termination order dated 17.09.1992 would have been upheld in view of judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench on 18.12.1998.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no violation of interim order passed by writ Court by the authorities concerned as the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands and have not disclosed before the writ Court about the upholding of the termination order dated 17.09.1992 in the year 1998 itself.
15. Contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Contempt notice stands discharged.
17. Let a copy of this order be placed in records of Writ-A No. 5993 of 2019 by the Registry.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
V.S.Singh
