Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T Madhu vs Shamsher Singh Rawat on 10 February, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.158 OF 2021
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent No.1,
and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. This Contempt Case is filed for non implementation of the
order in Writ Petition No.5730 of 2020 dated 12.03.2020.
3. The respondents herein are the respondents in the said writ
petition and the operative portion of the order in the said writ
petition is as follows:
"Hence, in view of the above judgment,
there shall be a direction to the respondents
to regularize the services of the petitioner
forthwith subject to the petitioner possessing
other requisite qualifications.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed".
Then the petitioner gave representation dated 04.05.2020 to
the respondents seeking regularization of his services with effect
from the date he completed five years of services. As there was no
implementation of the order of this Court dated 12.03.2020 he
filed the above said contempt case.
4. The 2nd respondent filed the counter stating that it was
allowed at the admission stage on 12.03.2020 with a direction to
the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner
forthwith subject to the petitioner possessing other requisite
qualifications. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal in
W.A.No.66 of 2021 and the same was dismissed at the admission
stage on 31.03.2021 observing as follows:
"Since it is not disputed by him that by virtue
of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 27.04.2004, the writ
petitioner would be entitled to regularization
of his service, we find no good ground to
interfere with the eventual direction of the
learned single Judge for regularization of
service of the writ petitioner of the learned
single Judge for regularization of service of
the writ petitioner.
The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed".
He further stated that in pursuance of the above said orders
of the Hon'ble High Court the proposal was sent to the Finance
Department dated 16.04.2021 under intimation to the petitioner
for concurrence to draft order vide e-file No.1393049 for strict
implementation. For which the Finance Department raised certain
query as follows:
"The Legislature Department is advised to
send the proposal duly examining the
requisite qualification in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 27.04.2004 for
regularization of the petitioner as directed in
W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and W.A.No.66 of 2021,
otherwise, necessary action/orders may be
initiated as per rules".
5. In reply to the above said query, the 2nd respondent
resubmitted the proposal on 09.09.2021. He also filed an
additional affidavit stating that the file was sent to the Finance
Department for concurrence of the proposal on 10.08.2020,
24.06.2021, 09.09.2021 and 24.09.2021 and the Finance
Department finally on 01.10.2021 at about 4:40 PM advised to
circulate the file for orders as per Business Rules along with
remarks of the Law Department. He further stated that the file
was already circulated to the Law Department on 27.05.2020 and
there is no need now for remarks of the Law Department. He
reiterated the decision for implementation of the orders of this
Court in W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and W.A.No.66 of 2021 dated
21.12.2020 but for the concurrence of the Finance Department.
He also sought permission of this Court to issue the regularization
orders for the petitioner as Office Subordinate.
6. While so, the 1st respondent filed the counter affidavit
stating that his Department is only an advisory Department on the
proposals referred to it as per the Gazette Rules and he is only a
proforma party and inclusion of his name in the Contempt Case is
not tenable. On merits he further submitted that the
2nd respondent has referred the file to him for concurrence on the
proposal for regularization of the petitioner as per the business
rules and the same was returned along with remarks on 24.08.2021
requesting to examine the requisite qualifications in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 27.04.2004 for regularization of the petitioner
as directed in W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and W.A.No.66 of 2021 and
take appropriate action. Further, the 2nd respondent again referred
the file on 09.09.2021 and continuation file on 28.09.2021
requesting him to concur the proposal for regularization without
examining the orders of the Hon'ble Single Judge passed in
W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and without considering the oral advise and
the same was returned on 01.10.2021, requesting to take action as
per the Business rules. As off now no file pertains to the petitioner
is pending with him.
7. The 2nd respondent also filed memo No.26/OP/II/2021 dated
09.11.2021 stating that after careful examination of the case and
latest remarks of the Finance Department a proposal along with
draft order has been initiated to obtain the orders in circulation
upto competent authority and sought some more time to comply
with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and
W.A.No.66 of 2021 in the matter of regularization of services of
the petitioner.
8. In view of the above said circumstances and events, it is
clear that the respondents suffered an order from this Court in the
above said Writ Petition dated 12.03.2020 as confirmed in
W.A.No.66 of 2021, dated 31.03.2021. Admittedly the said
proceedings have become final and there is no option for the
respondents except to implement the above said orders of this
Court in the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services
subject to the petitioner possessing other requisite qualifications.
It is not their case that the petitioner does not possess requisite
qualifications in terms of the above said orders of this court.
Inspite of giving number of adjournments so far in this case the
respondents have not yet come forward with the proceedings of
compliance of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition
No.5730/2020 dated 12.03.2020. Prima facie the deliberate
violation and disobedience are visible on the part of the
respondents/contemnors.
9. Hence, the Contempt Case is admitted and office is directed
to issue Form-I to the respondents. List on 24.02.2022.
_________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Dt. 10-02-2022
Yvk
